Vegas Pro 9.0a released

Jeff Harper · July 21st, 2009, 02:52 PM

I know some people have experienced some gains in render speed with 64 bit, (I experienced a tiny bit with previous version when testing) I don't see the purpose of the 64 bit version as of yet. I haven't seen a single compelling reason for it. At least with Windows 64 bit version I can see a bit of a difference in responsiveness, but not so with Vegas. I'll still try it out on the next project, since the playback issue seems to be fixed, which is a great thing.

I'm rerendering the same project again in 9.0a 64 bit and it's on track to render a minute faster than before.

Edit: Took 30 seconds longer second time, which means nothing.

I do fully admit that 9.0a seems much better behaving at first glance, and it seems promising. I am very interested in trying out 9.0a 32 bit version also and will when I have time.

Render speeds are not that important to me using the i7 processor. If I find that Vegas 9.0a behaves better or as well as 8.0c I would use it even with a slower render speed.

Mike Kujbida · July 21st, 2009, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

Confirmed. I just installed on my laptop, and my custom templates aren't there.

Confirmed here too :-(

Jason Robinson · July 21st, 2009, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Kujbida

Get it here
The list of bug fixes is quite long so here's hoping :-)

It is funny . . . I purchased the update right off the bat, but I havent' even touched the discs. They are still sitting un-opened in my closet. I jsut heard such horrible press about it that I figured why rock the boat (besides, I'm still in SD, and apparently Sony has pretty much abandoned any changes that affect me).

But may be I'll give the update a look......

Michael Ojjeh · July 21st, 2009, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Robinson

I purchased the update right off the bat, but I havent' even touched the discs. They are still sitting un-opened in my closet. I jsut heard such horrible press about it that I figured why rock the boat
.....

Same here Vegas9 still in the box, I edit in HD but still use Vegas8 and have no problem, waiting on 9 to be fixed before I jump in :)

Jeff Harper · July 21st, 2009, 09:19 PM

From all appearances 9.0a 64 bit is a big improvement over 9.0.

Jeff Harper · July 21st, 2009, 09:56 PM

My way too early assesment is as follows: 64 bit 9.0a handles AVCHD better, but 32 bit renders faster (on my PC). Vegas 9.0a and 8.0c (both 32 bit) render the same project in similar amount of time, with 9.0a a tad slower. 64 bit takes about 19mins. Again this is on my PC, and I understand your results may vary. As I've said before I know that some people have seen improvement in rendering with 64 bit, just not me.

I should explain that that I'm looking at Vegas from purely a performance perspective as I do not use any of the new features of Vegas 9 as of yet. I found the lagging playback of the preview window while editing in 9.0 absolutely dreadful, almost unusable, but 9.0a 64 bit seems to be a bit better. I need to play with it some more.

9.0a 32 bit offers absolutely no improvement in the preview department as 64 bit version seems to. If this is correct, than improved playback performance would be the compelling reason for using Vegas 9.0a 64 bit.

Jeff Harper · July 21st, 2009, 10:44 PM

I find the lack of response to this update almost scary. Could it be that many users felt burned by the initial release and are just ignoring the update?

I disparaged Vegas 9 before it was released because the issue of improved playback performance and handling of AVCHD files, etc. was not addressed.

Robin Lobel's recently released program GPU Decoder ($95) begs the question why couldn't this technology have been included (or something similarly effective) in Vegas?

Nero offers GPU enhanced decoding. Why not Vegas? (Not sure but I think Pinnacle does to.)

This question has been beaten to death, but is as relevant today as it was a month ago. I think Red support is fine, and support for the Canon Mark II is dandy. But how many more users are out here looking for an all-in-one solution for AVCHD and M2t playback? Why should we have to purchase plugins to make this program usable?

It just doesn't make sense, but then what do I know?

I have given up shooting HD because it is plain stupid to spend hours pre-rendering m2t files with Gearshift or Cineform before I can use them in a three or four camera editing situation. Besides, who has room to store two copies of video files for each project? When you have multiple projects going on it becomes insane. 250 GBs of space taken up for a 9 hour shoot?

I was watching some of my HD video earlier today, shot six months ago, and it looked nice. I wish I could afford to shoot in HD again, but it is too expensive. I just purchased two (2) 2TB drives to keep up with my storage needs ($650) and this is without using proxies.

Ian Stark · July 22nd, 2009, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

I find the lack of response to this update almost scary. Could it be that many users felt burned by the initial release and are just ignoring the update?

Personally, I am still nervous about the jump to 9. I'm going to wait until there are a whole load more postings here that say 9.0a is solid before I even load up the trial. I'm certainly not upgrading on the strength of less than 24 hours worth of postings (most of which are from you, Jeff, who seems to have the same opinion about 9 as me!!).

Commercially, I'm at a stage where I simply cannot afford to take the risk and the lure of the early purchase discount doesn't stack against the cost to the business of potentially problematic software.

Perrone Ford · July 22nd, 2009, 05:39 AM

Jeff, I don't know how your system is configured or tuned, but the rendering jump from 32bit to 64bit has been HUGE for me. I did a test render on a old HD file last night in 9.0 32 bit and it took 13 minutes. I saved the .veg file with the ending _13minutes. I then opened that veg file in 64 bit and rendered out. I'll let you see the attached screenshot for results.

This test was on my laptop. I haven't tested in the office yet.

Yang Wen · July 22nd, 2009, 07:16 AM

So it is the overall consensus that 64-bit is working fully working with the "a" release? And there is no reason to use 32-bit over the 64-bit if we have the adequate hardware + OS for 64-bit?

Ian Stark · July 22nd, 2009, 07:34 AM

I'm not in a position to comment on whether the 9.0a 64-bit release is solid or not, but the only times you may still wish to go 32-bit will be if you want to use any effects that are 32-bit only.

EDIT: and codecs, as Perrone mentions below!

Perrone Ford · July 22nd, 2009, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yang Wen

So it is the overall consensus that 64-bit is working fully working with the "a" release? And there is no reason to use 32-bit over the 64-bit if we have the adequate hardware + OS for 64-bit?

I use both because there is not a lot of support in the 64bit codec space, and lots of plugins still don't work in 64 bit. But 32 and 64 bit versions co-exist just fine.

Jeff Harper · July 22nd, 2009, 08:17 AM

Perrone, don't ask me why, I don't know. I'm not sure how system configuration could cause a 64 bit app to run slower in a native 64 environment, but I suppose it is possible.

I rendered same project below from same hard drive (Velociraptors in RAID 0) to same location and you can see the results below.

I checked my cpu temps during both renders and they were the same at about 59F during both renders.

Yang, my opinion is formed on very little experience yet, but it seems to me yes the 64 bit version does handle preview better (I've only tested it on one project that has a line of AVCHD in it).

You can't go by what I say but I would cautiously suggest 64 bit version "might" be safe. They have worked out a lot of bugs. The text thing was really scary, but they claimed to have fixed it. When that happened to me it freaked me out.

Perrone Ford · July 22nd, 2009, 09:50 AM

Jeff, out of curiosity, I am wondering 2 things.

1. In the 64 bit project, are you rendering at 8-bit or 32 bit depth? (and is it the same for the 9.0a 32)

2. In the 64 bit version is your project/template set to render "best" or "good"? And is this the same in the 32 bit version of the program.

Jeff Harper · July 22nd, 2009, 10:06 AM

Default settings. 8 bit and good. To even it up I set Vegas 8 at Best and it is on track now to finish same amount of time or so. See below image. I am leaving and don't have time to wait for it. BTW the projects have different numbers in the names, that's just me naming them in the render dialogue box differently, am using same project each time. I'll try it on others later.

July 21st, 2009, 02:52 PM	#16
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I know some people have experienced some gains in render speed with 64 bit, (I experienced a tiny bit with previous version when testing) I don't see the purpose of the 64 bit version as of yet. I haven't seen a single compelling reason for it. At least with Windows 64 bit version I can see a bit of a difference in responsiveness, but not so with Vegas. I'll still try it out on the next project, since the playback issue seems to be fixed, which is a great thing. I'm rerendering the same project again in 9.0a 64 bit and it's on track to render a minute faster than before. Edit: Took 30 seconds longer second time, which means nothing. I do fully admit that 9.0a seems much better behaving at first glance, and it seems promising. I am very interested in trying out 9.0a 32 bit version also and will when I have time. Render speeds are not that important to me using the i7 processor. If I find that Vegas 9.0a behaves better or as well as 8.0c I would use it even with a slower render speed. Last edited by Jeff Harper; July 21st, 2009 at 03:34 PM.

July 22nd, 2009, 05:39 AM	#24
Perrone Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Posts: 4,100	Jeff, I don't know how your system is configured or tuned, but the rendering jump from 32bit to 64bit has been HUGE for me. I did a test render on a old HD file last night in 9.0 32 bit and it took 13 minutes. I saved the .veg file with the ending _13minutes. I then opened that veg file in 64 bit and rendered out. I'll let you see the attached screenshot for results. This test was on my laptop. I haven't tested in the office yet. Attached Thumbnails __________________ DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels.

July 22nd, 2009, 07:34 AM	#26
Ian Stark Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,237	I'm not in a position to comment on whether the 9.0a 64-bit release is solid or not, but the only times you may still wish to go 32-bit will be if you want to use any effects that are 32-bit only. EDIT: and codecs, as Perrone mentions below! __________________ www.vit-media.com www.classicmachinefilms.co.uk Last edited by Ian Stark; July 22nd, 2009 at 08:13 AM.

July 22nd, 2009, 08:17 AM	#28
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Perrone, don't ask me why, I don't know. I'm not sure how system configuration could cause a 64 bit app to run slower in a native 64 environment, but I suppose it is possible. I rendered same project below from same hard drive (Velociraptors in RAID 0) to same location and you can see the results below. I checked my cpu temps during both renders and they were the same at about 59F during both renders. Yang, my opinion is formed on very little experience yet, but it seems to me yes the 64 bit version does handle preview better (I've only tested it on one project that has a line of AVCHD in it). You can't go by what I say but I would cautiously suggest 64 bit version "might" be safe. They have worked out a lot of bugs. The text thing was really scary, but they claimed to have fixed it. When that happened to me it freaked me out. Attached Thumbnails

July 22nd, 2009, 09:50 AM	#29
Perrone Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Posts: 4,100	Jeff, out of curiosity, I am wondering 2 things. 1. In the 64 bit project, are you rendering at 8-bit or 32 bit depth? (and is it the same for the 9.0a 32) 2. In the 64 bit version is your project/template set to render "best" or "good"? And is this the same in the 32 bit version of the program. __________________ DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels.

July 21st, 2009, 09:19 PM	#20
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	From all appearances 9.0a 64 bit is a big improvement over 9.0.

July 21st, 2009, 09:56 PM	#21
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	My way too early assesment is as follows: 64 bit 9.0a handles AVCHD better, but 32 bit renders faster (on my PC). Vegas 9.0a and 8.0c (both 32 bit) render the same project in similar amount of time, with 9.0a a tad slower. 64 bit takes about 19mins. Again this is on my PC, and I understand your results may vary. As I've said before I know that some people have seen improvement in rendering with 64 bit, just not me. I should explain that that I'm looking at Vegas from purely a performance perspective as I do not use any of the new features of Vegas 9 as of yet. I found the lagging playback of the preview window while editing in 9.0 absolutely dreadful, almost unusable, but 9.0a 64 bit seems to be a bit better. I need to play with it some more. 9.0a 32 bit offers absolutely no improvement in the preview department as 64 bit version seems to. If this is correct, than improved playback performance would be the compelling reason for using Vegas 9.0a 64 bit.

July 21st, 2009, 10:44 PM	#22
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I find the lack of response to this update almost scary. Could it be that many users felt burned by the initial release and are just ignoring the update? I disparaged Vegas 9 before it was released because the issue of improved playback performance and handling of AVCHD files, etc. was not addressed. Robin Lobel's recently released program GPU Decoder ($95) begs the question why couldn't this technology have been included (or something similarly effective) in Vegas? Nero offers GPU enhanced decoding. Why not Vegas? (Not sure but I think Pinnacle does to.) This question has been beaten to death, but is as relevant today as it was a month ago. I think Red support is fine, and support for the Canon Mark II is dandy. But how many more users are out here looking for an all-in-one solution for AVCHD and M2t playback? Why should we have to purchase plugins to make this program usable? It just doesn't make sense, but then what do I know? I have given up shooting HD because it is plain stupid to spend hours pre-rendering m2t files with Gearshift or Cineform before I can use them in a three or four camera editing situation. Besides, who has room to store two copies of video files for each project? When you have multiple projects going on it becomes insane. 250 GBs of space taken up for a 9 hour shoot? I was watching some of my HD video earlier today, shot six months ago, and it looked nice. I wish I could afford to shoot in HD again, but it is too expensive. I just purchased two (2) 2TB drives to keep up with my storage needs ($650) and this is without using proxies.

July 22nd, 2009, 07:16 AM	#25
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	So it is the overall consensus that 64-bit is working fully working with the "a" release? And there is no reason to use 32-bit over the 64-bit if we have the adequate hardware + OS for 64-bit?

July 22nd, 2009, 10:06 AM	#30
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Default settings. 8 bit and good. To even it up I set Vegas 8 at Best and it is on track now to finish same amount of time or so. See below image. I am leaving and don't have time to wait for it. BTW the projects have different numbers in the names, that's just me naming them in the render dialogue box differently, am using same project each time. I'll try it on others later. Attached Thumbnails