what is wrong... at DVinfo.net

Marius Boruch · August 27th, 2009, 11:04 AM

Since I upgraded to 9.oa I have problems after problems with Vegas; it crashes, freezes gives me errors all the time!!!! ie:
I am trying to render simple project: files are HDV mxf's and I try to render it to Play Station template; it crashes after some time giving me error like this:

Problem Description
Application Name: Vegas Pro
Application Version: Version 9.0a (Build 704)
Problem: Unmanaged Exception (0xc0000005)
Fault Module: C:\Program Files\Sony\Vegas Pro 9.0\FileIO Plug-Ins\mp4plug2\sony4vem.dll
Fault Address: 0x01F7AD3F
Fault Offset: 0x0001AD3F

Fault Process Details
Process Path: C:\Program Files\Sony\Vegas Pro 9.0\FileIOSurrogate.exe
Process Version: 1.0.0.1
Process Description: Sony File Interface Surrogate (not visi
Process Image Date: 2009-07-17 (Fri Jul 17) 00:04:18

What the hell is wrong with new Vegas!!!

Perrone Ford · August 27th, 2009, 12:16 PM

Have you just ignored all the warnings an such about Vegas 9(a) for the last 30 days or so? Including the one from Sony recently indicating issues like this that would be addressed with the 9.0b release due out any day now?

Perrone Ford · August 27th, 2009, 12:24 PM

Actually,

Looking at this now, I guess that 9.0b announcement wasn't as widespread as I initially thought. So we'll see when it comes out.

But do you remember this post by me?

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/1213458-post18.html

Marius Boruch · August 27th, 2009, 01:55 PM

yes, but I just rendered same project in Vegas 8.0c without ANY problems; so it doesn't matter how fast my pc is or how much RAM it has (mine is fast enough for V8.0c); Vegas 9.0a SUCKS. That's all.
What if 9.0b release will not fix that problem - we would be stuck with 9.0a projects that are not backward compatibile with 8.0 and we will not be able to render simple projects. That is scary. Plus I spent $250 on upgrade - will Sony refund my $$$???

Perrone Ford · August 27th, 2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marius Boruch

yes, but I just rendered same project in Vegas 8.0c without ANY problems; so it doesn't matter how fast my pc is or how much RAM it has (mine is fast enough for V8.0c); Vegas 9.0a SUCKS. That's all.
What if 9.0b release will not fix that problem - we would be stuck with 9.0a projects that are not backward compatibile with 8.0 and we will not be able to render simple projects. That is scary. Plus I spent $250 on upgrade - will Sony refund my $$$???

Marius,

I am not Sony support. I cannot tell you if you will get a refund. As for 9.0a not being able to render simple projects, I have rendered about a dozen projects so far in 9.0a including a 2 hour 3 camera multi-cam shoot from a few weeks ago with Magic Bullet looks, and separate audio. The fact that 9.0a doesn't work for you, doesn't mean that it's not working.

Saying that you computer is "fast enough" for 8.0c has zero bearing on 9.0a. It's a totally different program. And one I don't recommend to people without at least 4GB of RAM and a 64bit processor. ESPECIALLY, if they insist on putting long-GOP codecs on the timeline.

I'm sorry, I wish things were different. And maybe 9.0b will improve matters. But that's just the way it is for now.

Marius Boruch · August 27th, 2009, 02:19 PM

you are missing the point;
if I can render SAME compilation of HD files in 8.0c on the same computer without any problems (but slower) but can't do it in 9.0a then all of that you said above about amount of RAM and speed is irrelevant.

Perrone Ford · August 27th, 2009, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marius Boruch

you are missing the point;
if I can render SAME compilation of HD files in 8.0c on the same computer without any problems (but slower) but can't do it in 9.0a then all of that you said above about amount of RAM and speed is irrelevant.

No,

It's NOT irrelevant. 9.0a has DIFFERENT RAM and speed requirements than 8.0c. If it was the same, you'd be able to render.

So let me ask you this. Have you tried transcoding your long-GOP files to .avi files and seeing if that works? Since that's what we talked about before?

Marius Boruch · August 27th, 2009, 02:30 PM

not so much different according to Sony:

Vegas 9

Microsoft® Windows® XP 32-bit SP2 (SP3 recommended) or Windows Vista™ 32-bit or 64-bit (SP1 recommended)
1 GHz processor (multicore or multiprocessor CPU recommended for HD)
200 MB hard-disk space for program installation
1 GB RAM (2 GB recommended)
OHCI-compatible i.LINK® connector*/IEEE-1394DV card (for DV and HDV capture and print-to-tape)
USB 2.0 connection (for importing from AVCHD, XDCAM EX, or DVD camcorders)
Windows-compatible sound card
DVD-ROM drive (for installation from a DVD only)
Supported CD-recordable drive (for CD burning only)
Supported DVD-recordable drive (for DVD burning only)
Supported Blu-ray recordable drive (for Blu-ray Disc burning only)
Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0
QuickTime® 7.1.6 or later

Vegas 8

* Microsoft® Windows® XP SP2 or Windows Vista™
* 1 GHz processor (2.8 GHz recommended for HDV)
* 200 MB hard-disk space for program installation
* 1 GB RAM
* OHCI-compatible i.LINK® connector*/IEEE-1394DV card (for
DV and HDV capture and print-to-tape)
* Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0
* Apple® QuickTime® 7.1.6 or later

Perrone Ford · August 27th, 2009, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marius Boruch

not so much different according to Sony:

OK, well according the box you're good to go. My octocore with 8GB of RAM renders all my projects perfectly with zero issues.

Don't know what else to tell you.

Marius Boruch · August 27th, 2009, 07:33 PM

well...
and here we have "TONS" of fixes of version 9.0b

Notable fixes/changes in Version 9.0b
Resolved an issue that could cause the contents of media generators (most often text generators) to change when the Undo command was used.
Fixed a bug that could cause Vegas to crash during startup on some computers running Windows XP.
Fixed a bug that could cause still images to appear out of focus when rotated via Event Pan/Crop.
Fixed a bug that could cause audio dropouts in XDCAM SD (DVCAM) MXF files.
Fixed a bug that could cause an error when conforming trimmed XDCAM clips on the PDW-U1 deck.
Fixed a bug that prevented some QuickTime files from reading audio properly.
Fixed a bug that prevented metadata from being imported with 720-50p XDCAM clips.

As you can see version 9 was crashing even when starting in Win XP so it looks like I am lucky guy since my version was crashing while it was in the middle of the project. I am affraid people will still be disappointed.

Perrone Ford · August 27th, 2009, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marius Boruch

well...
and here we have "TONS" of fixes of version 9.0b

And there were 3x as many fixes in 9.0a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marius Boruch

As you can see version 9 was crashing even when starting in Win XP so it looks like I am lucky guy since my version was crashing while it was in the middle of the project. I am affraid people will still be disappointed.

My laptop is WinXP64. I run 8.0b, 8.1, 9.0a 32/64 on that laptop. I had no crashes or issues rendering files. I take the laptop in the field, and it is the only unit I have with an expresscard slot, so I use it to view every piece of footage from my EX1 that I shoot. If Vegas was unstable on it, I'd switch to something else.

But I suspect you are right. People will still be disappointed with 9.0b, because Sony has not come clean and told people that they simply cannot throw any and all kind of source data on the timeline with underpowered machines and have it work. So we will still see people with 32 bit OS's and hardware trying to edit AVCHD with multiple streams, various effects, etc., and it will continue to crash regularly.

Meanwhile people with i7, quad-cores, etc., and 8GB of RAM or more will enjoy smooth performance and wonder what everyone else is complaining about.

Marius Boruch · August 27th, 2009, 09:59 PM

I am rendering only converted mxf's in one long project and it causes 9.0 to crash half way; it was PERFECTLY stable on 8.0 but slower; so something is wrong here; Sony should make it clear that it requires a lot more than what they stated in system requirements; they never mentioned it.
not to mention that unthinkable "feature" NOT being back compatible with previous versions; I was die hard fan of Vegas from version 4 or 5 I believe, but what they had done now with 9.0 can be compared to "great success of Vista".
They market it as HD editing software knowing that it will require a LOT of power BUT thier system requirements are almost same as 8.0. Isn't that strange?
btw. I have quad overclocked to 3.2, 4GB RAM, RAID, Nvidia 8800 GTS 640MB - so the sytem is pretty strong, don't you think? it looks like I will have to wait till win7 comes to life.

btw. have you noticed a little grain when you were shooting your EX1 in low light?

Perrone Ford · August 27th, 2009, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marius Boruch

I am rendering only converted mxf's in one long project and it causes 9.0 to crash half way; it was PERFECTLY stable on 8.0 but slower;

I don't know how many ways it can be said. Clearly V9 requires more memory than V8.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marius Boruch

not to mention that unthinkable "feature" NOT being back compatible with previous versions;

This doesn't bother me so much. At some point, you have to move forward. And let's face it. It's not unheard of to have new versions of computer software not be compatible with old versions. Same with any kinds of electronics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marius Boruch

I was die hard fan of Vegas from version 4 or 5 I believe, but what they had done now with 9.0 can be compared to "great success of Vista".

That's your opinion. To me, V9 is the closest they have come to an actual professional level app. So what you see as a failure, many are seeing as amazingly successful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marius Boruch

They market it as HD editing software knowing that it will require a LOT of power BUT thier system requirements are almost same as 8.0. Isn't that strange?

It's only strange if people are naive enough to think that you don't need much system power to edit HD. It might confuse those new to HD, but honestly, anyone who's edited DV or especially HDV or higher forms of HD knows what should be required. Though I agree Sony should explicitly state what is required for editing modern HD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marius Boruch

btw. I have quad overclocked to 3.2, 4GB RAM, RAID, Nvidia 8800 GTS 640MB - so the sytem is pretty strong, don't you think?

Actually no, I don't think your system is all that strong. You have a good CPU. You have far too little RAM, (don't know what kind of RAID you have so I cannot comment), and you have an underpowered graphics card but Vegas doesn't really use it so that's not crucial.

Go read the system specs for Avid Media Composer. That is what is what should be on the Sony box. BUT everyone would flip out if Sony actually put real system requirements on the box.

Honestly, anyone trying to edit HD on a PC should be on a quad-core minimum, 8GB RAM minimum, Vista64 or Win7 64, at least 2 fast HDs, preferably 3 or more, and a pro-grade graphics card. I think we'd see a LOT fewer issues if this were the case.

Note that you said your renders fail half-way through. Clear case of running out of memory. So fix the problem. RAM is cheap.

Marius Boruch · August 27th, 2009, 10:33 PM

Perrone,
I am on Win XP so it will allow me to have only 4GB; do you think vista 64 would help (it is terrible piece of work - I have it on my brand new Vaio)
it was nice to exchange thoughts with you; I will have to wait for win7 to arrive;
one of the online store is offering it for $122 (upgrade) so I will try in October.
In the meantime I am heading for a little vacations to rainy Florida. Take care.

Thomas Smet · August 27th, 2009, 10:50 PM

I have been using Vegas 9.0a on cheap AMD Phenom 9500 system with 6 GB of ram and it works pretty darn good for HD projects. This is about as low of a quad core system as you can get and Vegas 9 works great for me. You could be having some sort of software conflict.

I do agree that Vegas could use a lot more power then the system I am currently running it on but it does work and it works well. I can't get a lot of effects to play at best quality for very long but then again the same is true for pretty much any other NLE on this system.

I did try Vegas 8.0 under XP on this system at one point and it did seem to work faster although I didn't really put it though a very scientific test since I had to swap C drives to switch between Vista and XP.

August 27th, 2009, 11:04 AM	#1
Marius Boruch Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 421	what is wrong... Since I upgraded to 9.oa I have problems after problems with Vegas; it crashes, freezes gives me errors all the time!!!! ie: I am trying to render simple project: files are HDV mxf's and I try to render it to Play Station template; it crashes after some time giving me error like this: Problem Description Application Name: Vegas Pro Application Version: Version 9.0a (Build 704) Problem: Unmanaged Exception (0xc0000005) Fault Module: C:\Program Files\Sony\Vegas Pro 9.0\FileIO Plug-Ins\mp4plug2\sony4vem.dll Fault Address: 0x01F7AD3F Fault Offset: 0x0001AD3F Fault Process Details Process Path: C:\Program Files\Sony\Vegas Pro 9.0\FileIOSurrogate.exe Process Version: 1.0.0.1 Process Description: Sony File Interface Surrogate (not visi Process Image Date: 2009-07-17 (Fri Jul 17) 00:04:18 What the hell is wrong with new Vegas!!!

August 27th, 2009, 12:16 PM	#2
Perrone Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Posts: 4,100	Have you just ignored all the warnings an such about Vegas 9(a) for the last 30 days or so? Including the one from Sony recently indicating issues like this that would be addressed with the 9.0b release due out any day now? __________________ 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.

August 27th, 2009, 12:24 PM	#3
Perrone Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Posts: 4,100	Actually, Looking at this now, I guess that 9.0b announcement wasn't as widespread as I initially thought. So we'll see when it comes out. But do you remember this post by me? http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/1213458-post18.html __________________ 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.

August 27th, 2009, 01:55 PM	#4
Marius Boruch Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 421	yes, but I just rendered same project in Vegas 8.0c without ANY problems; so it doesn't matter how fast my pc is or how much RAM it has (mine is fast enough for V8.0c); Vegas 9.0a SUCKS. That's all. What if 9.0b release will not fix that problem - we would be stuck with 9.0a projects that are not backward compatibile with 8.0 and we will not be able to render simple projects. That is scary. Plus I spent $250 on upgrade - will Sony refund my $$$???

August 27th, 2009, 02:19 PM	#6
Marius Boruch Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 421	you are missing the point; if I can render SAME compilation of HD files in 8.0c on the same computer without any problems (but slower) but can't do it in 9.0a then all of that you said above about amount of RAM and speed is irrelevant.

August 27th, 2009, 02:30 PM	#8
Marius Boruch Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 421	not so much different according to Sony: Vegas 9 Microsoft® Windows® XP 32-bit SP2 (SP3 recommended) or Windows Vista™ 32-bit or 64-bit (SP1 recommended) 1 GHz processor (multicore or multiprocessor CPU recommended for HD) 200 MB hard-disk space for program installation 1 GB RAM (2 GB recommended) OHCI-compatible i.LINK® connector/IEEE-1394DV card (for DV and HDV capture and print-to-tape) USB 2.0 connection (for importing from AVCHD, XDCAM EX, or DVD camcorders) Windows-compatible sound card DVD-ROM drive (for installation from a DVD only) Supported CD-recordable drive (for CD burning only) Supported DVD-recordable drive (for DVD burning only) Supported Blu-ray recordable drive (for Blu-ray Disc burning only) Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 QuickTime® 7.1.6 or later Vegas 8 Microsoft® Windows® XP SP2 or Windows Vista™ * 1 GHz processor (2.8 GHz recommended for HDV) * 200 MB hard-disk space for program installation * 1 GB RAM * OHCI-compatible i.LINK® connector/IEEE-1394DV card (for DV and HDV capture and print-to-tape) Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 * Apple® QuickTime® 7.1.6 or later

August 27th, 2009, 07:33 PM	#10
Marius Boruch Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 421	well... and here we have "TONS" of fixes of version 9.0b Notable fixes/changes in Version 9.0b Resolved an issue that could cause the contents of media generators (most often text generators) to change when the Undo command was used. Fixed a bug that could cause Vegas to crash during startup on some computers running Windows XP. Fixed a bug that could cause still images to appear out of focus when rotated via Event Pan/Crop. Fixed a bug that could cause audio dropouts in XDCAM SD (DVCAM) MXF files. Fixed a bug that could cause an error when conforming trimmed XDCAM clips on the PDW-U1 deck. Fixed a bug that prevented some QuickTime files from reading audio properly. Fixed a bug that prevented metadata from being imported with 720-50p XDCAM clips. As you can see version 9 was crashing even when starting in Win XP so it looks like I am lucky guy since my version was crashing while it was in the middle of the project. I am affraid people will still be disappointed.

August 27th, 2009, 09:59 PM	#12
Marius Boruch Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 421	I am rendering only converted mxf's in one long project and it causes 9.0 to crash half way; it was PERFECTLY stable on 8.0 but slower; so something is wrong here; Sony should make it clear that it requires a lot more than what they stated in system requirements; they never mentioned it. not to mention that unthinkable "feature" NOT being back compatible with previous versions; I was die hard fan of Vegas from version 4 or 5 I believe, but what they had done now with 9.0 can be compared to "great success of Vista". They market it as HD editing software knowing that it will require a LOT of power BUT thier system requirements are almost same as 8.0. Isn't that strange? btw. I have quad overclocked to 3.2, 4GB RAM, RAID, Nvidia 8800 GTS 640MB - so the sytem is pretty strong, don't you think? it looks like I will have to wait till win7 comes to life. btw. have you noticed a little grain when you were shooting your EX1 in low light?

August 27th, 2009, 10:33 PM	#14
Marius Boruch Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 421	Perrone, I am on Win XP so it will allow me to have only 4GB; do you think vista 64 would help (it is terrible piece of work - I have it on my brand new Vaio) it was nice to exchange thoughts with you; I will have to wait for win7 to arrive; one of the online store is offering it for $122 (upgrade) so I will try in October. In the meantime I am heading for a little vacations to rainy Florida. Take care.

August 27th, 2009, 10:50 PM	#15
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	I have been using Vegas 9.0a on cheap AMD Phenom 9500 system with 6 GB of ram and it works pretty darn good for HD projects. This is about as low of a quad core system as you can get and Vegas 9 works great for me. You could be having some sort of software conflict. I do agree that Vegas could use a lot more power then the system I am currently running it on but it does work and it works well. I can't get a lot of effects to play at best quality for very long but then again the same is true for pretty much any other NLE on this system. I did try Vegas 8.0 under XP on this system at one point and it did seem to work faster although I didn't really put it though a very scientific test since I had to swap C drives to switch between Vista and XP.