PeterWright wrote on 7/10/2007, 3:28 AM
Uneducated thought - he's never seriously tried Vegas.
Bit Of Byte wrote on 7/10/2007, 3:35 AM
Thanks PW.

Has anyone here tried Final Cut Pro and if so, offer their opions of this sw vs Sony Vegas?

rs170a wrote on 7/10/2007, 3:45 AM
Read the replies from Mike Jones (a guy who knows and uses FCP and Vegas - and a lot of other NLEs) in the Vegas -vs- FCP ??? thread on the DMN forum.

Bit Of Byte wrote on 7/10/2007, 4:05 AM
Great link - great post !

Thanks RS
blink3times wrote on 7/10/2007, 4:53 AM
This question comes up maybe once a month and I'll say it again... FCP is HIGHLY overrated. Mikes list in itself shows you the differences... but it's not just FCP... it's ANYTHING APPLE. Even the Ipods are overrated. You can get twice as much for 1/2 the price with another name brand.

What Apple has that is nothing short of brilliant.... is marketing.... that's it. I've thought in the past of getting an Apple this and an Apple that, but I know in my heart I would be disappointed in the end, because most of this stuff just does not live up to the hype that precedes it.
farss wrote on 7/10/2007, 5:54 AM
Funny I was part of a similar discussion yesterday except it was between Adrenaline and FCP. From those at the pointy end of the business FCP is a POS by comparison. Vegas got favourable mention but it's WAY too cheap to be taken seriously.

None of this is about anything real, it's all about bragging rights but they carry a lot of weight.

Chienworks wrote on 7/10/2007, 5:57 AM
Yep, hyped up marketing is it. It always irks me when folks show their brand new flashy iPod to me and all i can think of is that for less money they could have gotten a better unit with more storage ... if they'd just realize that they don't have to buy from Apple.

Last week we were sitting around the lunch table discussing the iPhone. The rest of the folks thought my comment summed it up pretty well. I said, "yeah, i'd pay $100 for one."
michaelshive wrote on 7/10/2007, 5:59 AM
It is quite unusual to criticize a product or platform without even using it! I wouldn't take the advice of someone who has never actually used the product. Mike J I would definitely trust, though - he knows his stuff.

From my experience I completely disagree with you. I've used Apple products for awhile and would gladly pay more (although the price really is neglible nowadays) for their products - they just work better than the alternatives. Now the ONE exception to this rule in my opinion is FCP vs. Vegas. After using both products for awhile I strongly feel that Vegas is superior in nearly every way with the exception of integration with the FC Studio suite. Motion rocks and an app with similar integration would be awesome for Vegas. In the meantime working in AFX and rendering is fine but it would be great to have an FX app that was cool like Motion on the PC side. As a NLE though I find Vegas far more useful than FCP. Every time I try to do something in FCP that would be simple in Vegas it is a major chore or you can't do it. Of course, they are just tools to get a job done so whatever works for you go ahead and use. The final product is really all that matters.

The only thing I do agree with you on is that their marketing is brilliant. They definitely make everything look better and easier than it actually is. If Vegas had the Apple marketing team it would be a different story for Vegas acceptance.
Bit Of Byte wrote on 7/10/2007, 6:07 AM
Good input.

If marketing has been a strong factor in Apple's business for many years, why hav'nt their opposition learned and done better?

Isn't this what the Japs did in the 80's (yes I know their sunk now..). Bill Gates did the same in the early 80's by copying MAC initially.
And, I'm sure the Greek empire became powerful all those centuries ago when they had to learn and get better than theor opposition.

It's NOT THAT hard Sony...History can and does repeat.

Anyway, I like Vegas - for now,,

stopint wrote on 7/10/2007, 7:26 AM
like many here i started with vegas audio v1 working in radio i have grown with vegas video in each release...i started learning final cut over a year ago...i personally love both and you can't go wrong using either...each has its quirks and each has pros and cons over one another...and without going into all the boring details it always comes down to what works best for you...both are solid and will produce for you...but if i had to choose i would still go with my experience less steps to do similar tasks and stronger audio...
Ben1000 wrote on 7/10/2007, 8:28 AM

As many here know, I have used Vegas to produce videos and podcasts for several years. For the last year, I produced a technology show ( using Vegas.

Recently, Apple sent me a MacPro and FCP6 to review, and I must say, I've been very impressed. I do notice things that are missing from FCP (like Vegas' audio tools and instant cross-disolve), but on the other hand, I've come to enjoy lots of FCP features (better multi-cam, great external compression app, dual-preview windows). There are also lots of similarities (Both are very stable, Both offer plugins to extend functionality).

I've been using FCP for a month or so now, and have produced the last several podcasts with it. The learning curve was short, having been proficient with Vegas.

My advice to folks is to stay with what you've learned, since both are excellent programs. I'd say that if you enjoy using Macs and need to interoperate with others in the industry, FCP is a better choice. If you prefer Windwos (I'm agnostic) and the lower cost of Vegas, stick with that one.

Just my 2 cents..


--------------------------------------------------------- - {The Weekly Technology Podcast}
Cliff Etzel wrote on 7/10/2007, 9:32 AM
I was recently chastised on another forum that relates to shooting video underwater about how I felt that Apple was a master at selling FCP to the masses who really don't need a complex suite and many users could instead benefit from the utilitarian capabilities of Vegas. Needless to say, the macophiles came out of the woodwork with their religious zeal.

I do wonder how this topic compares now with the recent release of Final Cut Suite 2

I think Mike Jones broke it down very succinctly in his post on DMN and it really put things in perspective for me once and for all.

If you have the bank account to support an Apple habit (Including the bloat that comes with it - FCP suite is HUGE!) then go for it - I find myself preferring the simplicity and efficiency of Vegas, Cinescore, and Sound Forge for the kind of work I do more and more. If I can just get a better handle on the Deshaker issue, I'll be content.

Cliff Etzel
Patryk Rebisz wrote on 7/10/2007, 9:50 AM
THe question has many answers mostly because of many users using both platforms for various things. I use Vegas to do editing tweaks and then run color correction over a file i have shot... In that sense i'm not an editor -- i have people doing that. And what they use to edit is totally their preference, what counts is their talent not their platform. I got used to the idea that most of them work on FCP, it really doesn't bother me. When i see them at work doing simple cut i'm amazed at how efficient they are, still sometimes their is something to do and they have to do so many silly things and press so many buttons to achieve what with Vegas would be a breeze. Yet even then i don't question their editing software choice.

To do what i need my packed to do (mostly color correction and tweaking audio) Vegas is unbeatable. FCP has probably the words color correction tools from all software out there. It does change with Color, but up to now it was a disaster to CC with FCP's tools. In that sense on most projects it was easier to grab a file from the editor and do what needs to be done on my system
Coursedesign wrote on 7/10/2007, 9:53 AM
I love Vegas and wish I could use it for all projects.

Unfortunately I have to reach for FCP when it can do what Vegas cannot: support for 10-bit video (and higher), a supported video format list that's a mile long, and of course working with other people on projects (because other people use FCP, they don't use Vegas).

I don't like editing with FCP nearly as much, but I certainly appreciate the rest of the FC Studio package, which saves a lot of time. Motion is brilliant, Live Type rocks, DVDSP is vastly more capable than our DVDA, so I find myself having to compromise.

I trust the people who think the iPod is a very poor value at "twice the price" are all driving a Toyota Yaris?

After all, why spend twice as much for a car when the Yaris has four wheels and four seats too just like the more expensive cars?

UKAndrewC wrote on 7/10/2007, 11:58 AM
After all, why spend twice as much for a car when the Yaris has four wheels and four seats too just like the more expensive cars?

Precisely ;-)
juan2004 wrote on 7/10/2007, 1:28 PM
Well, I not try Final Cut Pro Studio 2 yet, but I know wahat Final rocks to Vegas in many senses and factors, only I was trying Premiere Pro CS3 and it is very close to be heat-to-head with Vegas and many times Premiere wins to Vegas.

Rendering or exporting work finished
Premiere Pro CS3 >>> 8
Vegas 7 >>> 10

Premiere Pro CS3 >>> 10
Vegas 7 >>> 9.5

Audio and video FXs
Premiere Pro CS3 >>> 8
Vegas >>> 10

Premiere Pro CS3 >>> 10
Vegas 7 >>> 8

Premiere Pro CS3 >>> 7
Vegas >>> 10

Importing audio and video files
Premiere Pro CS3 >>> 7
Vegas 7 >>> 9.5

Premiere Pro CS3 >>>7
Vegas 7 >>> 9

Integration with other applications
Premiere Pro CS3 >>> 8
Vegas 7 >>> 3

If anyone had been trying Premiere Pro CS3 please tell us ur own viewpoints about it

Coursedesign wrote on 7/10/2007, 2:00 PM
After all, why spend twice as much for a car when the Yaris has four wheels and four seats too just like the more expensive cars?

Sounds like a happy Yaris owner!

Drat! :O)

Sorry, I chose the Yaris with my U.S. blinders on.

Because of the continuous devaluation of the U.S. Dollars, the Yaris is not a good value here in the U.S., compared to competing cars including some that even cost less.

I can imagine that it's a different story with the solid UK Pound Sterling, or even the Canadian Loonie.

My favorite is the Toyota Prius. I can put enough gear inside the car to almost embarrass a grip truck, and still get phenomenal gas mileage. A 20 mile roundtrip to LAX gives me a real-life 50 mpg every time, and that's our smaller U.S. gallons (I used to suspect that the wine gallons used on board the Mayflower shrank during the trip, but the difference was caused by the British redefining the gallon to be the volume of 10 lbs. of water), so about 62 miles per Imperial gallon. And the Prius is no slug either: Al Gore's son just got a ticket for doing 105 mph in his on the 5 Freeway in California :O).

blink3times wrote on 7/10/2007, 5:07 PM
Well, I've probably said this before somewhere too but here goes anyway.... If you want something that stands toe-to-toe with Vegas, then try Avid Liquid. But FCP.... not even in the same ring as either of these programs. FCP can't do 1/2 of what these 2 programs can.
Coursedesign wrote on 7/10/2007, 5:27 PM
Well Blink, people rarely use NLEs on their own anymore.

Vegas is preferable to FCP when it can be used, and yes, it can do things that FCP cannot.

But the opposite is also true, as FCP can do a lot that Vegas cannot do today.

Also, as you have seen from the development of the discussion here, people don't choose just an "NLE" nowadays, they look for a post production environment.

This change has been driven by the possibility that the same person can do more than just editing.

The expectation is that when you sit down for post production, you will do what used to take 3-4 people (compositor, colorist, soundtrack editor, etc.), and if you have advanced requirements, there is no one program that can do it all.

Then it becomes a question of "how much hassle is it to shuffle footage between the different applications that are needed?"

Both FCP and Adobe CS3 Production Suite have superb integration, second only to Vegas when it can do it all by itself. This is unfortunately not always the case.

If that is always the case for you, feel blessed. But know that not everyone is so lucky.

ReneH wrote on 7/10/2007, 8:05 PM
Apples did a brilliant thing in terms of marketing their product before they got established. They did it by following the "drug dealer model."

Apple donated many of their computers to schools for free, as a gesture of "how a company stepped in to help poor underfunded schools." They realized that the kids would soon learn computing skills on their systems and they in turn would soon pester their parents to buy them one. Create the market need by providing the goods for free. Like going to the hood and giving away free cocaine to get your buyers hooked on the product. Soon, they would come a knocking for more and be willing to pay because they are hooked.

In short, Apple created a market by hocking their shit to the skills, creating generation of Apple addicts. It is almost cult like the way some of these people are within the Apple world.
reidc wrote on 7/10/2007, 8:50 PM
Microsoft & Dell have been doing the same thing for years, very successfully as it turns out in terms of the "drug dealer model." I use Vegas less & less, but it's great for single-man projects, where I do it all myself. Vegas really shines & is the best tool for videography oriented stuff and 1-man (woman) operations. And yes, I know there are a number of larger organizations using it for larger projects. And since I've spent most of my life as a sound editor & re-recording mixer, I love that Vegas feels like a DAW. BUT, as I'm designing workflow for television programming pproduction (mostly cable television, i.e. lower margins, large product volume & short turnaround), I'm finding that workflow-wise, FCP wins. Avid would probably win over FCP as well, but we're designing around FCP because of cost-per-seat.

Here's a bit f platform background on me as far as audio goes before I get to my main FCP point. Professional audio editorial, mixing, mastering & film sound restoration has been my main gig until now. I use ProTools but I don't like it. I prefer an application called Nuendo, and I use it on a dual Xeon PC, which makes me a dual oddball. I use Protools for file exchange, but don't fool myself into believing Nuendo will overtake ProTools in the market. Nuendo works better for me re workflow. Here's the beginning of my point: there are very few pro level Nuendo editors/mixers I can go to in L.A. for post work when I need help on large projects, at least compared to PT users, who literally blanket the ground here.

Now to my point, & here's the thing i NEVER hear anybody talk about re platform & video editorial applications, and believe me when I say "this is how it is in Hollywood", especially at micro/small/medium sized production companies. Turn on your television to Discovery Channel, HGTV, Bravo, History Channel, etc... MOST of these shows are being turned out by "mills" (the very kind of mill I'm in the process of building). They don't pay their editors particularly well, neither of course their assistant editors. These are to-the-bone-operations trying to squeeze as much profit out of $100,000 per network hour of production as they can. And you know how they do it? They hire FCP people. They hire FCP people because they, also, carpet the ground here. They're also falling down from the heavens, and off the trees. I can't throw a stone out my window without it hitting an FCP-trained editor in the head, bouncing off & hitting a ProTools person in the head. And because of the absolute glut of FCP & Protools people, they are a commodity. They're cheap, they're not hired for their creativity, since these are template shows we're talking about, and if they don't like it they can quit. They can be replaced in an hour, less than that. I've seen it in action. That's how mills work, and why these companies gravitate to the most prolific platforms in short order. (I'm trying to build a diferent kind of dynamic, but that's another story).

I prefer Nuendo for sound. Can't find the people to fly it, and when I do they want real $$ for their work. I may prefer Vegas overall to FCP, but the few people who can fly it tend to be very valuable because they CAN do it all, or most of it. And they cost real $$. And I can tell you firsthand, now that I'm producing & into severe budgeting on several shows I've created, that if I can get the job done for even a quarter less because FCP guys are thick on the streets, I'm going to do it.

Love Vegas. Saving money in the pipeline with FCP.

Reid C
vitalforce wrote on 7/10/2007, 11:53 PM
<<He laughed at me and said Final Cut Pro beats Vegas on all fronts.>>

I guess it's all relative. I was at a street fair a month ago in Burbank and walked by the training center Video Symphony. The director was standing outside and I asked about FCP versus Avid. His reaction was more polite, but his obvious opinion was that FCP was a nice little toy for filmmakers but that nothing compared to the Avid feature set and its interface with the industry.

The one thing that makes me think of saving my sheckles for a copy of Avid Xpress Pro is the auto-color correction system. FCP and Vegas don't have that, and in the clip on Apple's Final Cut Studio 2 site where the Coen Brothers talk about how FCP is the greatest thing since nonlinear editing, I kept wondering if the green tint of the Matrix series and the gold tint of 'Brother Where Art Thou' were in part a result of not being able to color balance the foundational white and black levels in a standardized way.

Probably unfair criticism--the Coen Brothers are a little further along than me in filmmaking, ahem--but still, even though I lust for the Avid color correction engine and new render engine, I still continue to tweak my DV projects, very comfortably, with Vegas.
Bit Of Byte wrote on 7/11/2007, 12:23 AM
....I have a lot to learn..... :-)
FuTz wrote on 7/11/2007, 12:55 PM
Some kind of a bottom line that's getting clearer as days pass is that Vegas definitely has to be able to communicate with the long time established players in the pool. No matter what's the best app, it HAS to be made in the next version i.m.h.o. As simple as that. I doubt people will start to learn 2 or 3 different apps so they can work with all of them as workarounds. They want one functionnal tool with avoiding as much p.i.t.a. as they can in their workflow and in the so said "pro arena", everybody knows who the players are. Sad but reality.
"Integration" is the word.