Vegas vs. Other NLEs

fongaboo wrote on 1/24/2003, 7:09 AM
<RANT>

As I start to use FinalCut Pro more on a daily basis at my internship, I start to realize more and more just how superior the interface of Vegas is compared to other NLEs.

I would say the biggest thorn in Vegas's side (industry-wise) is its lack of any real-time hardware support, but I have to point out how utterly crippled FCP is when it is running only on a CPU. Anything that is any more complex than playing back a single unmodified DV stream is continually replaced with an 'Unrendered' placeholder. I can't believe that the 1Ghz G4 I am running on can't muster up *some approximation* to show me unless I manually pick and choose and render. It's like working with blindsiders on.

And how about how unintelligent FCP's rendering is anyway? You shut off a track and lose all your renders even if you turn it back on.. If you obscure a single DV clip with a long transition, but then shorten that transition, FCP still insists that you must render the areas that the transition spanned before shortening.. :-P

And then the fact that it chokes and stutters on MP3's and needs to render audio when two or more pieces with different sampling rates are mixed?? Ridiculous!

I am starting to realize how utterly simple yet ingenious the idea of sliding two events into each other and having them transition wherever they intersect is. In FCP and other NLE's, transitions are presented as objects in themselves that have to be chosen and dragged onto the timeline, positioned and lengthened. I find myself always having to pre-plan how to compensate in order to get the result I want, often having to move and resize clips numerous times, deleting and re-dragging the transition each time till I get it right.

It is becoming clear that I would never want to use anything other than Vegas for any video project that is in any way musical. It'd pretty much be impossible to use other NLE's for most of my pre-production tasks as a VJ. Is Vegas the only NLE that allows seamless looping of a region with real-time adjustment of that region? This is so crucial for culling video loops out of material and making the audio and/or video seamless.

I also like being able to structure my timeline in the way that I want to and not having to view video tracks grouped with other video tracks.. audio tracks with other audio tracks.

Just want to remind you all at SF that you are appreciated!

</RANT>

Comments

mcgeedo wrote on 1/24/2003, 7:32 AM
My two-cents worth: I am relatively new with video editing, but I have tried several of the $100-200 class editors, and they are all junk compared to Vegas. I second the comment about SF.
TLT wrote on 1/24/2003, 2:40 PM
Sonicfoundry has something very valuable. Employees with a level of creative inteligence that is rare indeed. I am so pleased that I found out about their software. Finally a company that delivers. They are the best hands down! They actually care about their customers.
BillyBoy wrote on 1/24/2003, 3:15 PM
Part of the problem with Final Cut Pro is it only runs on a Mac.

What do you really expect from a toy computer?
newbe wrote on 1/24/2003, 3:28 PM
I agree 100% about all thats been said about VEGAS! But to call Mac a 'toy computer'
sorry thats a bit far out.
swarrine wrote on 1/24/2003, 3:38 PM
Lol! BillyBoy you would think you are safe in here. newbe is right though - Mac is not a toy, just overpriced and sloooooow.

When they dump Motorola, things could get interesting.
HeeHee wrote on 1/24/2003, 3:59 PM
When they stop making Macs proprietary crap and widen their application and OS base, I may consider pruchasing one. Until then, I'm on the side of BillyBoy!
ReneH wrote on 1/24/2003, 4:18 PM
That's one major thing I've hated about Mac's and generally Apple computers: all that proprietary shit you have to put up with. I love to tweak my system on my own terms, those products take that away from you.
BillyBoy wrote on 1/24/2003, 10:10 PM
Actually if you had my experience you would in fact call it a toy too. Its a relative thing. I go back to the very first personal computers, back before Mac's, back before AppleII, or the first Apple, back before the PET... back to gulp... the TRS-80 from Radio Shack and the Heathkit "computers" and a CompuColorII. So, yes I kind of call all those toys, since I cut my teeth on mainframes costing millions. LOL!

I always end these discussions asking a simple question. If any Apple is/was such a hot computer, then how come it never got above 7% of the market and only that because they got dumped in school districts just to get their foot in the door.

To be fair Windows version two, there was no version one of Windows that I'm aware of, not official anyway was, well a toy too.

James Green wrote on 1/25/2003, 12:12 AM
I'll have to go along with BillyBoy (my first computer was a Texas Instruments TI-49a...you know...the silver one with the Atari 2600 style game cartridge socket to the right of the keyboard). Lately Macs are toy computers....I mean when the majority of the development budget and marketing publicity goes towards the pretty plastic box surrounding the really important (but badly outdated) parts, what else would you call it. A Ferrari just isn't a Ferrari if it's powered by a 3 hamster Geo Metro engine no matter how pretty the exterior.

James Green

(BTW, I own one of those hamster powered Ferrari's and work with them during the week...)
JohnnyRoy wrote on 1/25/2003, 9:29 AM
First of all I’m PC user and I would not buy a Mac because there is just a greater software selection on Windows. I have friends who own Mac’s and they can run Windows programs with some emulation software. I cannot run Mac programs on my Windows system. I can also run Windows programs from my Linux system but I can’t run Linux programs from my Windows system. Hmmm… makes you wonder which one is proprietary. That’s why I’m not following this discussion on Mac being proprietary.

Why is a Mac proprietary? The same PCI Cards work in both a Mac and PC so the hardware isn’t proprietary even though the CPU’s are different. You can only run two operating systems on PC hardware and that’s Windows and Linux. You can only run two operating systems on a Mac and that’s Mac OS and Linux. Why is the Mac considered proprietary and PC not?

I wonder how many of you who call the Mac proprietary also own a Sony camera. Now there’s a proprietary company if there ever was one. Forget about the Betamax vs. VHS thing. I’m talking after that. The industry comes out with VHS-C and they come up with Hi-8. The industry comes up with miniDV, and they come up with Digital8 and microMV, the industry comes up with SmartMedia and Flash and they come up with MemoryStick. Just once I’d like to see them use some industry standard, Just once. I don’t like companies that think they can snub their nose at the world and ignore industry standards.

> If any Apple is/was such a hot computer, then how come it never got above 7% of the market...

BillyBoy, please be careful with this one. You could say the same thing about Vegas. Betamax was superior to VHS, OS/2 was superior to Windows NT, the best technology rarely wins. It’s all about marketing dollars and Microsoft has very deep pockets.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to reboot from my open Linux desktop and go back to my proprietary Windows desktop to do some video editing with my low market share, underdog Vegas NLE. ;-) (tongue planted firmly in cheek)

~jr
James Green wrote on 1/25/2003, 10:25 AM
"I have friends who own Mac’s and they can run Windows programs with some emulation software."
You kind of have to question why this is neccessary. Why don't PC's emulate Macs. Simple...aside from FCP which might intrigue some PC users, what have they got that we don't already have?

"You can only run two operating systems on PC hardware and that’s Windows and Linux."
Well actually there is (the now defunct)BeOS and there's lots of stuff out there and stuff still being by Be diehards. Also there's a movement to develop OpenBe as a new operating system.
And BTW OS2 only recently died. There was still development and lots of people using it even if it wasn't highly publicized.

James Green
JohnnyRoy wrote on 1/25/2003, 4:40 PM
> what have they got that we don't already have?

Good point. There are no Mac apps that I long for.

> OS2 only recently died. There was still development and lots of people using it even if it wasn't highly publicized

Another good point. That’s because it did stuff for business customers that NT just couldn’t do. Like I said, superior but didn’t win.

I still have a T-shirt that has a big N.T. on the front (with little letters added so when you get up close you realize it really says, “Nice Try”) and an OS/2 logo on the back with the slogan, “Not just up and coming... up and running!”. This was during the time NT was having launch delays. But no body remembers that NT was late. Just that it won.

~jr