I've written a wiki-page on how to get the best possible editing experience with Sony Vegas Pro.

This is based on almost ten years (started with v4 2003) of relying on Sony Vegas for meeting client demands.

Magnus Helander - random findings / Optimizing Sony Vegas editing (http://helander.pbworks.com/w/page/32523746/Optimizing-Sony-Vegas-editing)

/Magnus

You say this is written for Wikipedia? Sorry, there are too many hard sell cliches in the narrative to meet my expectations for objective information. Just seeing the phrase 'editing experience' in the title made me cringe. I would have preferred a simple "editing results" Would Wiki even consider entering such subjective How-To topics as how to enjoy some brand name product?

Paul, these are my personal observations and recommendations from 10 years with Sony Vegas.
They are not objective and definitely not suitable for Wikipedia or any other unbiased media.

The focus is not technical results, codecs or image quality - it's "how to get an optimized Sony Vegas editing system".

>>>>I've written a wiki-page <<<<<
Sorry Magnus; this line confused me then.

Really a commendable effort ( for the effort ) .. But right off the bat you have me confused..

You write:

Sony Vegas is not hardware accelerated - it relies on (and scales with) your hardware configuration ..

I have a feeling you meant to suggest something other than how it reads..



P.S.
OK, one more:

" Read media from your RAID unit and write renders to a separate drive. Massive speed gain when rendering."

Simply not true.. Disk I/O has little, if any effect on rendering speed.
But I will agree it is a good idea to have your source and output media on separate drives for organization and backup purposes .

"Sony Vegas is not hardware accelerated - it relies on (and scales with) your hardware configuration .."
I have a feeling you meant to suggest something other than how it reads..


ROTFL - I can't believe I wrote that!! Thanks for pointing it out.

Separate media and render drives will give you a massive performance gain.

To verify this:
1. Open a reasonably complex Vegas project with all media stored on a standard SATA drive, something like... E:\media
2. Render your project to same physical drive, E:\media. Time it.
3. Now render with same settings to a different physical drive, external USB or similar such as F:\usbdrive or another SATA drive. Time it.

Compare the timings. See what i mean?

/m

What codec and length of media are you talking about ?


I'll try a few simple renders. I may have spoken too soon, and will be prepared to apologize..

The longer and more complex the project the bigger the difference - stills, lower thirds, vo, music, PiP..

Haven't really tested/timed simultaneously reading & writing to logical RAID units, but assume they perform better when only reading.. I always render to a separate physical drive.

/magnus

I don't agree with several points, but that is unimportant. I commend you for the effort, well done.

I too commend you for the work done, good stuff!

I find this very helpful. Thank you.

Hi Marc. Do these interesting observations also apply to VMS 10 HD platinum.