Would you like to see Sony sell Vegas?

[Paul Cascio]

I would like for Sony to form a partnership with its key Vegas people, that lets it retain the Sony affiliation, but removes the corporate leg irons. It's a shame that Vegas has not evolved the way it could.

[Joe Parker]

I can't imagine Vegas would be better off without Sony behind them. The scare of them going out of business before Sony purchased them is still too fresh in my mind.

It's just fantasy to think Sony is somehow holding back progress.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Paul Cascio

It's a shame that Vegas has not evolved the way it could.

Which is how?

[Paul Cascio]

Well, for one thing, Vegas still can't take advantagge of GPU processing. Also, version 9 was a very weak upgrade from 8 for most of us.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Paul Cascio

Well, for one thing, Vegas still can't take advantagge of GPU processing. Also, version 9 was a very weak upgrade from 8 for most of us.

Most NLE's make VERY little use of the GPU. You either need to write the app FOR a GPU or not. But, I wouldn't mind seeing some more intensive routines use it. Like the preview portion.

Version 9 was an AMAZING upgrade for some users. Not much for hobbyists, or broadcast people, but a quantum leap for indie film folk. They hit nearly everything I had hoped and asked for. I'd still like to see a proTools compatible audio export, and some stronger EDL compatibility. Fixing the scopes would be great too. But we can do many things other NLEs cannot, or make it so painful to do.

Try dropping some 480/60i next to some 720/30p, and some 4k/24p in the same sequence in most NLE's and see what happens.

[Joe Parker]

Originally Posted by Paul Cascio

Well, for one thing, Vegas still can't take advantagge of GPU processing.

Ha! That'll teach you to ask silly questions! :)

Personally, I started asking about hardware rendering about 2 years ago. I'm still waiting, even as we take the plunge to HD and 6 to 1 AVC rendering times (add some color correction, make that 20 to 1!).

But I bet Nvidia is the main hurdle, not Sony. Try their Badaboom app if you want a really bad example of what should actually be possible today.

I figure we'll get it a year after FCP has it.

But I suppose we're topic hijacking if we take this thread off towards hardware rendering.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Joe Parker

But I bet Nvidia is the main hurdle, not Sony. Try their Badaboom app if you want a really bad example of what should actually be possible today.

Why would that be? Apps take advantage of the NVidia GPU from inside Vegas. I'm sure the Vegas folks could do the same.

[John Cline]

Vegas would have simply ceased to exist without Sony and Vegas v9 was a significant upgrade for me as well.

Now, about GPU processing... It is not the Holy Grail of video editing that everyone thinks it is. Adobe Premiere has about as much GPU integration as any NLE at the moment and truthfully, it really doesn't make much difference. The GPU is very good at performing lots of little tasks in parallel, unfortunately there are very few situations in video editing that can take advantage of this parallel processing as most video processing tasks are sequential in nature. Avery Lee, the author of Virtual Dub and about as smart a programmer as anyone, has experimented with CUDA and video processing and has a blog entry about his experience:

Exploring CUDA - virtualdub.org

Video encoding is different than video editing and CUDA can certainly have an effect on the speed of encoding. Badaboom is not particularly versatile but it is a pretty speedy encoding application. It's a whole lot better than ATI's GPU encoder.

[Marc Salvatore]

[QUOTE=Perrone Ford;1265819] Fixing the scopes would be great too. But we can do many things other NLEs cannot, or make it so painful to do.

Perrone, What's wrong with the scopes?

[Paul Cascio]

We're all Vegas fans, myself included. It's the best NLE available in many ways. IMO, it's the one NLE that lets you become an Editor; not just an operator.

However, I think many of us are also a bit frustrated and perhaps feel that Sony could put more effort and attention into making Vegas even better. If that means partnering with another company and giving up a share of the profits in return for a better product that will produce greater market share, than I think it's the right move.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Paul Cascio

However, I think many of us are also a bit frustrated and perhaps feel that Sony could put more effort and attention into making Vegas even better. If that means partnering with another company and giving up a share of the profits in return for a better product that will produce greater market share, than I think it's the right move.

Now I can agree with this maybe. But I don't think it needs to be sold to happen. From what I understand, the boys who make this thing are running a pretty small shop. A basic expansion might well help out a LOT. However, what's the profit incentive? I think it's more important for Vegas to find it's target first, and I think 9.0 tips it's hand to the indie market. They know they aren't going to knock off AVID or FCP in the film market. Or Edius and AVID in the broadcast space. Adobe is going to be hard to beat with it's tight integration with AE and Photoshop for compositors. So winning the indie market is a viable idea.

What's the hottest camera in that market right now? RED. Hence we see a BIG push from Vegas into the RED world. What's the next hottest cam? The EX series. Now we see full native support for XDCamEX. Terrific. I think they are making the right choices, but in doing so, are going to lose some customers, and hopefully gain a lot more customers. But certain basics are going to have to be addressed. I'd bet they're working on those things as quickly as they can. They certainly seem to be in a hurry on a number of things as some massive bugs got through in this release.

[Jim Snow]

That's a tough question. In order to have sufficient resources to develop and market complex products, it's very important for a company to be big enough to adequately fund the operation. As with many things, that's a mixed bag. Along with the financial resources within a larger company goes a dark side as well - politics, conflicting agendas, varying competence, etc. that impede a smooth and focused operation. You wind up with people playing the game called "Keep your job." So when the CEO wants to skim money from development budgets so he can show a bigger "profit" to the shareholders so he can collect his big bonus (or keep his job), the product suffers because the staff has to go along with these "corporate decisions" that are adverse to maintaining and developing the product(s). But at least the product doesn't go away because the "big" company can carry it. A small company runs a significant risk of financial failure if there is a hiccup with the product or a market downturn. Even if they don't outright fail, they can be incapable of maintaining and enhancing the product because they can't afford the staff and other resources that are needed.

[Paul Cascio]

I worked for a software company many years ago (writing manuals) that had a great product that was very successful. Work was fun and the employees were happy and productive.

Then, a big company, Ashton-Tate (dBase) bought the company. The product languished and eventually died. Might have happened anyway, but I think software and corporate environments often tend not to get along well.

Look at Serious Magic - great companies whose products I never minded paying for. They made innovative products that solved problems. Then, along comes Adober and products like Ultra have dissapeared and OnLocation has been mostly stagnant. IMO, you can buy a software company, but you can't buy the talent and the atmsophere in which the products were created.

[Jim Snow]

Originally Posted by Paul Cascio

you can buy a software company, but you can't buy the talent and the atmsophere in which the products were created.

As a matter of fact, the best talent often leaves because they can't adapt to the new "corporate" environment; - - and if they are good, they "don't need to put up with the crap" as they might say on the way out.