Hi Lamont,

This might be old news, but you never know.

If you go with Premiere, they are running a special:

"Adobe Video Collection Standard edition
Special Introductory offer. Save US$200 off the regular price of US$999*
NOTE: Includes Adobe After Effects 6.0 Standard edition, Adobe Premiere Pro, Adobe Audition, and Adobe Encore DVD software."

It does not look like Photoshop or Illustrator are included in the "Video Collection" anymore. Adobe Audition was formally "CoolEdit" and I have heard good things about Encore DVD.

$799.00 sounds like a good price, even if you never take Premiere out of the box, the other three products will more than make up the difference if you didn't spring for any of SF's other applications.

Sorry, but I side with your boss.

Vegas is a great editor, no question. I love it, and use it for most of my projects. BUT:

For an edit where the client is present and making decisions (and simply for sheer ease of decision-making on the editor's part) there's nothing that beats being able to see a full resolution, full frame rate preview right away, without having to wait for a render.

The final quality will be the same, as you note...but it's the facilitation of the actual editing process where the RT system has a big edge.

If you're trying to edge out the media company upstairs, then a great real time system would be the Canopus DV Storm. You'll be able to upgrade to Premiere Pro very shortly, and that'll have a lot of cool features that should make you feel better (some, anyway) about not having Vegas. And you can always load Vegas on the same system and use it when the boss ain't lookin'.

One more cautionary point: Be careful when bringing media production in-house. There's more to a good video project than the hardware and software, and those "guys upstairs" have been making a good product for you. Don't be too quick to abandon something that's working.

Seems to me a very important issue gets overlooked in th Real Time debate.
Yes VV isn't realtime nor is any of its competition at anything within many orders of magnitude of its price point.

I've just about finished a very annoying project, needed lots of tweaking, noise removal etc. 90 minutes took 10 hours to render. I was discussing it with one of my mates who pointed out where he worked all of that can be done in real time on their Smoke system. Cost here, about $1,000,000.

Throw in Discretes Combustion for some cool real time composites and kiss goodbye another fortune.

If you think anything below those sort of price points can do everything that VV can do for peanuts in its own good time I think you're going to be dissapointed. You'll find one of two things happening. Either you're limited to what the hardware will support OR beyond a certain point the system ceases to be real time.

Certainly there are cheaper RT systems that fill niche applications, Edius being one, Avids Newscutter is another. If what they provide ia all you need and time is critical then you buy them and accept the limitations.

I always get a kick when sombody makes some comment along the lines oh, my client needs to see "real" time then blubbers about some application that costs $10,000, $100,000 or more and then wonders how come Vegas can't do that?

Like comparing a kid flying a kite to the space shuttle. Each has a purpose. The kite costs a few bucks. The space shuttle costs over a billion. Duh!

Fourth column, fifth down:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/homer.html

I have to disagree with farss and Billyboy. There ARE real time systems out there that are within the same general price range as Vegas, and are comparable in capabilities. The RT system I know best is the Canopus Storm and Premiere, so I'll use that in my discussion.

This system adds about $1,000 to the cost of your computer...not $10,000 or $100,000. Premiere has better media management tools than Vegas, and can accept a much wider range of third party plugins. On the other hand, Vegas has a few features that Premiere doesn't -- better audio tools, transitions on any track, and velocity envelopes, for example. Vegas is said by some to be more stable than Premiere, but I haven't found that to be true; both programs will occasionally crash on my system. The programs have very different user interfaces, and where one will appeal to some people, others will prefer the competing program.

The point is that the Storm/Premiere system doesn't have "limitations" you must accept, unless you also concede that Vegas has "limitations" you must accept. Both systems have their own strong and weak points. Both will produce excellent quality video, from a technical standpoint and from an artistically pleasing one. However, by paying that extra $1,000, you get a lot of real time performance from the Storm system.

I wish that Sony would pay attention to the suggestion made by several people, that Vegas should partner with Canopus to produce a true real-time version of the software coupled with the necessary hardware. Until then, I'll keep right on using Vegas for the projects that make sense for it, and the Storm and Premiere for those that will get the most benefit from the real time features.

videobear,
I've run Premier and VV on the same hardware. Premier prangd a quite a few times, usually whn I asked it do a more complex things, VV has only gone dead maybe once.

But that for me wasn't that much of an issue, lack of audio tools in Premier was a big issue. An I detest the way so many othr NLEs treat audio, just what is a 50% level on a audio track?

As for the other systems you mention as having RT capability, we'll within certain limits they certainly do RT, add enough tracks though and no more RT.

That is just the inverse though of what I was trying to say. If you can live within the limits that they have and RT is a big thing then go with them. The more capability you need in RT causes the cost to escalate very rapidly simply because of the amount of hardware required and they are selling into a smaller market.

I've got a system that for straight cuts that is much faster than VV and much cheaper. Its limitation is only one video track and no audio capability.

I still feel that VEGAS needs a Hardware component to go real time. I feel this need for any NLE. Even if it's jsut a card with tons of RAM on it. IT IS NEEDED!

If you take a look at the 'proffessional' NLE's, they have some type of breakout box or card combo. VEGAS could offer a LE(Limited Edition) & PE(Professional Edition). Or call it whatever they want... just give us the hardware option. Who cares if it costs more. Naturally it would. Those that don't want to splurge for it don't have to. Then those of us that would splurge, can. Don't punish us all. To be software only realtime you would need to have a computer that is @3-5 times as fast as the fastest computer out now. It will be years before we see anything like that. Then when we see this computer we will be so advanced in our editing that it will not keep up. We Nedd the Hardware.

VEGAS makes it easy for us to edit already. Now they need to step it up into the professional realm. If they did this, you know so many professional editors and studios would switch over to VEGAS. This would shoot VEGAS to the top and make it the Professional's Choice. It would end all debates. Hopefully Sony will see this and make it happen.

We are purchasing an AVID turnkey station and even with the Hardware it only promises 3-4 layers realtime. VEGAS is already there and AVID is supposed to be the big dog. Just imagine what the Hardware option would do. Coupled with BORIS... you wouldn't even need AfterEffects anymore. So all other NLE's would be obsolite. After Effects, which has been the staple of most editing, would also be obsolite. VEGAS would be light years away from everyone.

But what do I know? I'm just talkin and ramblin. I'm sure they know what they're doing. VEGAS I won't leave you baby. But I do wish you would step it up a notch so I wouldn't have to defend you all the time.

Lamont

>>>After Effects, which has been the staple of most editing, would also be obsolite.<<<

I think anyone who is using AE to edit is really doing things the hard way. And I really have yet to meet anyone who uses AE to edit. Premiere, Avid, Discreet Edit (D/Vision) - they have been staples of editing.

>>>Coupled with BORIS... you wouldn't even need AfterEffects anymore.<<<

Sorry, I just cant see VV replacing AE. AE does what it does very very well. I wouldn't try to edit anything serious in AE nor would I try to do serious compositing, effects, or title building with VV. (Or Premiere, or Avid, or MSP, or...) Admittedly I have not tried Boris RED in a few years but I did not much care for it then so I am not sure what the VV version would offer to make me want to try it again. But that is just me, I know many people love RED but I am not one of them.

You just THINK its needed. If or not its needed is relative to the type of projects you do. I suppose also somewhat to the type of clients if any you have since its pretty obvious there are many tweener-types judging from the posts, where they use Vegas purely for hobby use and/or perhaps one man type businesses probably focusing on weddings, other similar events when a deadline isn't along the lines of hurry up, I needed this yesterday.

The fact is hardware rendering is OLD technology, meant to get over the hump when CPU's crawled along mcuh slower than they do now. Today that is no longer true and tomorrow's CPU's will be a good deal faster allowing speeds approaching true "real time" rendering perhaps as soon a a couple years or so. So to invest time and energy chasing after old technology is in my opinion... penny wise and pound foolish.

I agree you and a couple other guys have rambled on and on over this and as of yet haven't provided any factual reason WHY other that it would be faster. Faster isn't always better. Tying rendering to hardware is risky business and may/can introduce a whole bunch of problems. On top of that haware rendering cards, the ones that are any good are EXPENSIVE. I simply don't see the majority of current users using Vegas wanting to come up with another $800-$2000 or so just to get faster rendering.

Besides, there are very few "us" clambering for hardware rendering. What there is in the forum are a vocal minority ( a few) that seem obsessed with having it. I'm just as strongly opposed, mainly because the return on the additional investment simply isn't worth it. For the few it may be... as you keep reminding us Lamount you have other options if "real time" hardware rendering is so important to you.

Yes, I agree with you. I think SoFo/Sony knows what they're doing... why there is no hardware rendering offered. It really isn't that big a deal for the nitch Vegas has carved out of the market. Maybe that will change, I don't think so, at least not anytime soon. If you're waiting for hardware rendering don't expect it in version 5. Of course I'm just guessing. ;-)

Dennis,
you've made an erroneous assumption which does expose the core of this issue. Avid offers max of three tracks with RT rendering and then say imagine how VV woud go with hardware acceleration and unlimited tracks.
But one reason Avid is limited to 3 tracks is because that's as many as the hardware can cope with. You simply cannot build a hardware device that's going to handle unlimited tracks.

The performance of systems with h/ware render engines is a bit of an illusion, I'm not just talking VV here either, FCP users who bought the Matrox cards have had serious grief waiting for Matrox to update the drivers for OSX, haven't heard if they are out even yet.

It seems that when REALTIME is mentioned, RENDER TIMES always come up. I don't care about render times. I usually render in the evenning or overnight when I'm not in the office. While I'm sleeping it is rendering so there is no problem with render times being slow. My boss is naturally looking for the cheapest way to get what he wants. So far I have installed VEGAS on a computer at work so I can capture and begin a rough edit. I try to do a render a day so that when he swings by I can play it for him. Also I've been selectively rendering any changes. He's been happy with the results so far but wants to be bragadocious to our clients when they walk into the room. As we all know clients don't understand the premiss behind a DRAFT quality preview. They see that and think their project will look like that. I've explained it 50 times to 50 clients and don't see me stopping anytime soon so I've kinda got my explanation and reasoning down now.

So hardware is yesteryear? Would one of the newer video cards with lots of RAM help out? I have 1Gig of DDR Ram installed. Do you think that a card that boasts another 256megs (or as much as I could get) would help?

Also, I'm thinking of Hardware that would 'help'. Not hardware that would carry all of the load. I'm thinking it should be a software/hardware combination that would achieve true realtime play.

>>>I think anyone who is using AE to edit is really doing things the hard way.<<<
I agree. I don't use AE to edit but I do go back and forth if I need a desired effect because I have lots of AE plugins and only a few for VEGAS.
>>>Sorry, I just cant see VV replacing AE.<<<
VEGAS will never replace AE. But BORIS RED damn sure can. Therefore the VEGAS/BORIS combo could render AE obsolite. But all in all it's dependent on how your workflow goes and what you're used to. I've seen awesome things come from COMBUSTION but I couldn't do it in that program. It's not where my knowledge is. So I guess all in all it's about doing what you know with what you got. Pick something, stick with it, and learn what it will and will not do, then find workarounds. Seems to work so far. Just stressfull sometimes.

Lamont

After a certain point (probably 256MB total or so), RAM has just about zero impact on speed. Vegas just doesn't use or need much.

However, having lots of RAM allows you to do more dynamic RAM pre-rendering. Choose some of the more complex sections of the project and pre-render them to RAM. Then these sections will playback/preview in realtime. The more RAM you have the more of these pre-renders you can have available for faster access. Each 256MB of extra RAM will give you an additional 66 or 67 seconds.

It's weird to hear people say VEGAS does not need much RAM yet still we edit and set our preview at DRAFT QUALITY. Maybe if VEGAS utilized it's RAM more efficiently we could run our previews at BEST QUAILTY. Maybe not full frame but still FULL QUALITY.

If only VEGAS could make use of Software & Hardware together. The Matrox RTXtreme 100 looks like it's the shizee for shizel! But I'm still anxious to see what changes Sony will bring. Version 5 will be the kicker for sure. It will be the NLE of choice. (VEGAS 4 is already my NLE of choice)

Lamont

Lamont, how would use of RAM affect preview quality? That's a processor intensive task, not a storage intensive task. Are you sure you know the difference? Best quality takes exactly as much RAM as draft quality, no more or less. Even a full screen PAL (786x576) display at full size only needs about 1.3MB of RAM. Please tell my how more RAM would help.

I guess I don't know the mechanics of computer use of RAM. I just thought it used it as needed to complete a task. I guess it can't be used to affect the preview like I thought it could. And I'm definitely not wanting to get into a debate about something I don't know. With this I lay down my sword.

I am happy with VEGAS.

Lamont

The only reason to have tons of RAM in your system to use vegas is if you do a lot of RAM renders, then I can see where having 1-2Gb of RAM would be beneficial. IF you never do RAM renders then 512 should be enough for most people, althought I know a lot of people still use 1GB.

To answer your question about the RAM in a newer graphics card ... more of it won't necesarily help. That is, unless you are using Boris Red. Just about anything above 32 MB is designed for handling the processing of 3D graphics. Since Vegas only uses 2D features of your card then as long as you have enough RAM to store the screen image at your chosen resolution then it should be fine. And, actually that's not really going to be a consideration because the card driver will not let you set a resolution above what it can handle.

Boris Red on the other hand uses OpenGL to render it's title effects and stuff so you may want a few faster GPU for that purpose. Or if you do any 3D modeling then the more the merrier. Just don't expect it to speed up the previews in Vegas.

Something you might look into after getting the fastest dual CPU system you can afford is to get a RAID hard drive array. A super fast transfer rate on the hard drive system will help in situations where Vegas is playing 3-4 tracks at once, such as when running composited tracks and multiple audio tracks. Each file is located on a different section of the hard drive so when you are trying to play them back at the same time, the hard drive has to jump around all over the place.

Home some of this helps.

JBJones