Ok, don't kill the messenger. But what happened?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1264735,00.asp

I'm not sure if it was already posted here.

Anways the reviewer is mistaken about Vegas. But, I do agree that Vegas' titling tools are weak (say, compared to Final Cut Pro's Livetype). Considering its price you could just add on a third party titler if you need fancy titles.

There's some erroneous information in his review.

Just a few thoughts:

Easy to use interface: True
Excellent audio tools: True
Generally good output: True but equals or exceeds others listed
Quite slow: False, although rendering is slower than some other programs. Overall operation is FAST
Lacking in some areas such as titling: Somewhat true although there is a LOT of power when combined with other effects
Lacking in some areas such as transitions: False (Cut or Dissolve should be used 99% of the time anyway!)
Color Correction Tools: Work VERY well.
Chroma Key Easy: Yes
Chroma Key Darkened Background: Haven't seen this.
Audio tools: Best of ANY NLE.

While I do not doubt their timings, there is MUCH more to editing than rendering to AVI or MPEG. I consider that time minor to the time saved while doing actual editing due to real time previews and other features.

Hahaha...."PC Magazine". Give me a break.

Weak transitions? Since when do we base our judgements on NLEs on their fancy transitions?!


No Validity.

The guy who reviewed Vegas really got it wrong--but then again, Sonic Foundry doesn't advertise the way Pinnacle and Adobe do in PC Magazine (although this might change with the Sony acquisition). PC Magazine should stick to selling and stay out of the review business--

PC Magazine was a good magazine..., 8 years ago.

If it's possible for a big advertiser to have a mag print favourable reviews of his own product, isn't it equally possible to have them print bad reviews of the competition's?

See the odd thing is it wasn't a "bad" reivew per-say. It was more wishy-washy. Kinda like "Vegas is good...BUT". However your right there definitly can be politics in editorial colums/reviews.

When making the decision between Edition and Vegas, there was one compelling factor that still is the overriding issue – stability. Vegas just plain works! Edition, on the other hand, crashed during a DV Creators workshop I attended in Tampa this year, on my computer as a demo, and for many of the users reporting on Edition Planet. I have never regretted buying Vegas, because it works!

One man’s opinion.

I'd hardly call that a review.

I believe the reviewer has a personal preference for Edition. My efforts to convince him that Vegas had a higher "productivity quotient" obviously failed.

Regarding the comments above that the review was slanted due to advertiser pressure, Sony is much bigger than any other player in the video editing market and its advertising dollars would be similarly important. Why would PC Mag dump on Sony? Sony, now, not Sonic Foundry.

In general, I think the notion of advertiser pressure is overstated. It's more a popular belief, the magazine equivalent of "money talks." I used to work for Ziff-Davis as EIC of one of the computer magazines. I can't say I was never pressured, but I can say that I and my editorial staff fought zealously to remain objective. Knowing many of the folks at PC Mag, I'd have to say I think they do the same.

The reviewer is just wrong in this case, and that happens sometimes.

Will

I can think of a million compelling factors Vegas has over Edition, stability not even being one of them.

Your point would be well taken if this reviewer hadn't been negative about Vegas from day one---when Sonic owned them. If you persuse PC Magazine, I would wager to say that most Sony products have been advertised via retail and mail order ads by resellers--Very little actual Sony advertising.

It doesn't matter if Sony currently advertises or not. Sony advertises a lot in print and PC Mag would surely want some of that action.

I have to stop the speculation here. None of us truly knows how
why and what and can only read the article as it is.