I'm thinking about giving Vegas Video 3 a second look, what do you all think?

[Hulk]

I currently own Vegas Audio 2.0, it's a really great multi-track audio program. The video editing features just don't seem very intuitive to me, but it could be that I just need to spend some time with it.

I have been frequenting the dv.com forums as of late and have notice the near zealotry surrounding the propagandizing of VV. The general concensus from the users is that it is the BEST video editing program by far, and you simply need to spend a day with the manual to get the feel of it.

Hmmm. Some of the arguments are so strong that I am considering giving it another try. The problem for me is the the interface doesn't feel "right" to me, like MS Pro does. The layout is right for a mult-audio program, but I'm not sure I could get used to it for video editing.

Here are some things that I was wondering about:

1. Supposedly Sonic Foundry use's their own dv codec. Is it better/faster than the MS codec that MS Pro uses? Same for the MPEG routines, how are they?

2. Realtime preview goes to the tv out. Does this really work as advertised?

3. Is this program lacking anything that MS Pro has or is it really the greatest thing since sliced bread?

4. How is the stability. MS Pro is excellent in that regard.

As I said, some of the VV arguments are very convincing, but others are silly. One guy was recommending VV over MS Pro because it has UNLIMITED audio and video tracks whereas MS Pro only has 99 tracks. Oh yeah, I'm ALWAYS reaching for that 100th audio or video overlay track!

I am interested to know how these programs really stack up from someone who actually knows about BOTH of them.

Mark

[IM_Riktar]

I'm no expert but,,,,,,,

That never stopped me from giving my opinion before. Anyway I have used MSPro 6.02 and am currently dabbling with Vegas Video 3.0 I will try to hit on the points I do infact know. This ensures a not so long post,,

Stuff I Like:

1. Codec quality - I don't know if SOFO really wrote this codec from the ground up or modified the Mainconcept DV Codec. But the quality is VERY good. I tried rendering the same track 5 times and it is damn hard to tell it from the original. Previously I was capturing footage in analog (Uncompressed) that required overlays, or titles. With this SOFO's DV codec I am putting the titles straight in and rendering them. They do look damn good. I have not run any speed comparisons but it seems to do ok.

2. Stability - Haven't crashed it yet. And I am pretty good at screwing up programs

3. Timeline interface - It takes a little getting used to but it aint so bad for organizing tracks from a cuts only or transistion standpoint. The auto crossfade feature is nice since that is my prefered method of blending scenes..

Stuff I dislike:

1. Scrubbing of the timeline is not as exact as MSPro. Using a slider bar interface and trying to hit your mark just doesn't cut it compared to Ulead's mouse dragging method.

2. Moving Paths. My apologies to any Vegas fans who read this but Vegas Video just plain sucks at this! I don't want to hear about reading the frigging manual! I am reading it! I am trying to work at it! And if I hear one more proponent of this software tell me they can do it faster I am going to tell them to show me how. MSPro has the most intuitive (Better than Vegas so there!) Motion Path menu I have ever used. And if someone can show me that they can do it faster then the 3 - 10 seconds it takes me to set up a moving path with resizing and rotation on 3 Axis's I will publically retract this statement in whatever forum they choose. Until that time comes, all you fans of Vegas can take a flying leap!

3. No printed manual. This is just plain stupid! PDF files are for sub $100 programs. You DON'T charge what they are and then cheap-out on the manual. Whoever decided this is the way to sell something should be fired, tarred and feathered, and run out of town!

And finally,

I now understand why SOFO used the interface they did. Since it is based on their audio products it makes perfect sense to their present customer base. Maybe a first timer could pick up on this software better than the "standard" of Premeire and MediaStudio. I don't know. I am curious to know how many of these people claming that "I used MSPro and Premeire and prefer Vegas" are experienced Vegas Audio users. Well gee, I wonder why they picked up on it so well.

What I am doing right now is doing all of my DV work in Vegas with the exception of moving paths. That I am doing in MSPro 6.02 and rendering the scene uncompressed and importing it into Vegas for the final render. Yah, I know that is no savings in time but I am trying to give this software a honest try. So for now that is how I feel about Vegas.

One last thing, If I find out that Mainconcept's codec is just as good (Or the same) as Sonic foundry's codec this experiment is going to take a very quick turn.

[Dr Mordrid]

M/C's codec does work very nicely it can edit & render using either type 1 or type 2, depending on your preferences.
I don't use M/C very much anymore since I have an RT-2000 around and it comes with Matrox's software DV codec for installation on other sytems.

The Matrox DV codec is right there quality wise with the Canopus DV codec, which is yet another notch above M/C and several time zones better than M$DV.

The Matrox DV codec can also render to DV & DVCAM types 1 and 2, DVCPRO and DVCPRO50, which makes it very, very flexible.

IMHO they should sell the damn thing separately.....

Dr. Mordrid

[IM_Riktar]

In terms of a standalone codec I think I am going to try and use Mainconcept's incarnation and run some projects side by side to see how the final result comes out.

And if Matrox would be willing to sell their codec by itself, heck I'll give that a whirl.

Frankly the MS DV codec that MSPro 6.0 uses is the primary reason I decided to give Vegas a whirl.

Now if I would have found out about Mainconcept's before I tried this experiment with Vegas,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[IM_Riktar]

as a personal observation

Hey Hulk

Your term of zealotry fits the mindset of the people at Creative Cow's Vegas forum and the Sonic Foundry forum to a "T".

While I have met some very nice and helpful folks there, you do seem to run into the occasional (Well maybe more than occasional) "It does EVERYTHING better" type of person.

And once I heard that for the 3rd time I really started wondering what is up with this? I don't know about anybody else, but I have found that nothing does everything better than anything. As soon as that phrase is tossed out for me to hear I start wondering, "What flavor of snake oil did you say?"

This observation comes from completion of my 45th lap around that big ball of fire in the sky without being proved wrong yet.

So while I am still trying to see if this Vegas thing is all it's cracked up to be, I have pretty much made up my mind that if I can't figure it out with the manual (For the most part) this product just isn't what it's cracked up to be.

From my own "zealot" standpoint, I didn't find MSPro that clumsy or hard to work with.

So if Vegas users do think that Ulead makes hard to use products, and they proclaim that Vegas is Sooooooooo easy, who is the liar, or idiot?

[Hulk]

IM_Riktar-

This observation comes from completion of my 45th lap around that big ball of fire in the sky without being proved wrong yet.

I'm only on lap 36! I agree with you 100%

I find it perplexing that the guys who speak down to everyone who don't use VV are actually nice, experienced, and helpful when it comes to other matters and issues. I can understand suggesting that someone try another program, but there is a respectful way to do that.

My first enounter with the VV passion was in replying to a thread where someone was asking what type of system to buy. I responded that I purchased a P4 because I used MS Pro and it was optimized for SSE, SSE II, etc. Not a ringing endorsement for MS Pro or the P4, just an opinion given in a thread asking for same.

Well, one guy practically calls me an idiot for using MS Pro! I don't see any reason to debase someone for their software selection.

Anyway, thanks for your insight into both programs. Very informative.

The DV codec really only matters when re-rendering is done, right? Transitions, overlays, etc...

[Dr Mordrid]

Yes, the important part is rendering. That is where the rubber meets the road with DV video and there is a WIDE variation in the quality the various codecs put out.

You can check this page and see how wide this variance in quality can be, but note that many newer ones like the RT-2x00 codec are not included in the tests;

http://members.home.net/dgcom/MiniDV/DVcompressors.htm

Note especially the loss of quality, esp. color shifting, in the images posted here;

http://members.home.net/dgcom/MiniDV/DVcompressors2.htm

Dr. Mordrid

[IM_Riktar]

The DV codec really only matters when re-rendering is done, right? Transitions, overlays, etc...

Yes, correct, and you bet your dupa! Staright cuts and minimal transitions will always keep things as pure as possible since you are not forcing any software interpretation on your footage.

I always try to stay as far away from "Used car commercial" videos as I can since I have never been a fan of having the effects overshadow the substance. But some subject matter does require it.

Where I run into quality loss is with memorials, tributes, "This is your life" kind of stuff. Trying to blend video with stills, moving paths across a background will quickly show just how good the codec can stand up. And this is where the better codecs allow you to stay DV all the way. If you find that you are having to do uncompressed captures to maintain a artifact free result, it's time to start looking for something better than the MS DV codec.

I do enjoy what the effects can do, from a personal "geek" standpoint. But there is nothing, and I repeat nothing, like seeing a tear (Of joy) from someone who watched your film and can only reply that it was wonderful. Not "How did you do that? If that comes later, fine.

The biggest point is the message, not the verbage.

[Hulk]

In the few paying jobs I've done, I have relied on straight cuts and crossfades almost 100% of the time. I look at every job as simply trying to tell a story, that is my focus. If an effect or moving path will help I'll use it, only as an end to a means. It is my opinion that the easiest way to tip someone off to a amateur production is to try to replicate effects done by major studios in a cheesy, "kind looks like this" way. If I can do it right, I look for a simpler way to do it.

But again, I digress.

[Sciascia]

In the few paying jobs I've done, I have relied on straight cuts and crossfades almost 100% of the time.

I agree with you 100% on this one. Unless you are doing a promo or something similar the majority of transitions detract from the point of the project. They make the product feel gimmicky or make the viewer lose focus on the message. For 10 sec spots though they really add some spice to it. Strange how the human mind works, huh?

[Dr Mordrid]

I agree. In most projects 85+% of all transitions should be either straight cuts, crossfades etc. About another 10-12% should be wipes of one kind or another with the few remaining being real DVE's.

The exceptions would be thing where excitement is the norm and a staid old transition is then out of character. Examples: sports etc. or commercial promos. Here things like the funnel and such can add some spice without getting too garish.

Some things, however, do lend themselves to DVE's. Properly done weddings are an example. Having a heart shaped wipe or the like can be very appropriate. Same goes for two framed PIP's or a split screen of the bride & groom getting ready etc.

Dr. Mordrid