Just wondering how the VV4 beta testing is going. Anyone download and use it yet?

Downloaded it but too busy or lazy to install and play with it. Interesting review by Brian Standing though.

http://abcdv.com/article/articleview/64/1/52

I have played with it a little. I really like the built in wave form monitor and vectorscope, and the advanced color correction tools. I remember SF's site said something about "using prerender files to render" or something like that. Maybe this means it won't have to rerender every time the wind blows?

I have been using it and it sure seems to use more system resources. I am a huge Vegas fan, but there is not enough in 4 for me to want to upgrade.

I've been using V4 alot. The two biggest improvements are in the area of color correction/vectorscope, waveform analyzer and the addition of 5.1 surround sound ala Acid 4. There are a miriad of other "changes" which can be classified as slicker ways to do what vv3 already did. Well worth the upgrade, but, then, thats just MHO.

I may be doing something wrong, but it takes way longer to render the same clips on my system than Premiere.

Quality doesn't come for free. Premiere uses the Micro$oft codec, whereas Vv3/v4 uses the SoFo codec. The M$ DV codec is garbage and I wouldn't use it if it were free. So, since I'm not in a newsroom, time costs me very little for the higher quality.

Yes, I've downloaded it and played with it some. Here are my reasons for upgrading:

1) Much better color correction tools.
2) Better rippling
3) Includes the "add-on" package for Vegas 3 (effects & transitions)
4) Faster scrubbing (up to 20x)
5) Smart resampling (no more need to set the switch when changing speeds)
6) Smarter at keeping track of pre-renders
7) Scripting capabilities to add MANY new features to the program.
8) Interesting editing methods such as "shuffle"
9) 5.1 encoding
10) Built-in scopes
11) Master Video/Audio tracks to keyframe things that were previously not keyframable.

Shall we continue??? I see a LOT of reasons to upgrade.

IMO, the upgrade makes sense depending on how much you use Vegas professionally.

If Video stuff is just a hobby for you, there might not be enough to upgrade, if you're looking to use it professionally, it's a must upgrade


just my .02

I take back my saying I would not upgrade. I would and will, but not till my computer can handle it.

I know it's still not available, but does anyone know what the prices will be for those going from 3 to 4? Or is it still a secret?

I agree with Bill and Ed whole-heartedly. I've downloaded and used V4.0 since I got the e-mail notice from SoFo. I bought 3.0 when it was first introduced and have had no regrets. After looking at several other NLEs, except for FCP, I was ready to buy Avid DVExpress. My only complaint about VV3.0 was the lack of a robust color correction system. I sent them an e-mail stating such. Now, that's not to say they did that for me or because I sent them an e-mail suggesting it. But it's obvious that enough people did. What I'm saying is they appear to be serious when it comes to listening to their customers.

I'm confident that VV can stand up against any other product out there. Oddly enough, I think the upgrade to 4.0 is similar to the upgrade from the XL-1 to the XL1-s. On the surface, it may appear to be somewhat superficial. However, for those of us who have used both extensively, we have learned that that simply isn't true.

As someone else said, if you're into video as a hobby, stay with 3.0. If your a serious video producer (as income) it will be, again, a steal for the cost of an upgrade!

Just my opinion!

I guess I should have explained that I use the Storm so I'm not using the Microdoft codec, but rather the Canopus. I did compare clips that were rendered, though, and VV took a lot longer. I also have Avid XDV and FCP, and both rendered faster thatn VV4, at least in my test. Time for me is critical, so speed matters for me.

Jeff,

I agree you about render times. Premiere renders only what needs to be rendered whereas it appears that VV renders the entire timeline. Maybe I have VV set-up wrong but the rendering does seem awfully slow.

Overall I like the software. It is much more stable than Premiere was on my machine but I have to figure out how to manage the render times. I am still using my Rex RT for color correction and some filters just to avoid the VV render times .

Rick

What the guy on the other forum said is true... that's not really a *Great* deal... not for an upgrade. I could sell my copy of vv3 and then pay less for the full install of vv4.

"A new Sonic Foundry flyer in the SNAIL MAIL today! Upgrade from Vegas 1, 2, or 3 to Vegas 4: $199.95
Video Factory to Vegas 4: $399.95"

I think it's in keeping with other upgrades on similar products. The jump from VV 3.0 to V+DVD is quite a step up. Where else can you get that capability for $399?

I agree with Ed Fiebke, it's "reasonable."

Rick, I agree, I think it looks like a good NLE but I guess I'm not willing to learn another one unless I could use it to replace Premiere. I wish Canopus would write a driver for it. I'm certainly not married to Premiere and it's bugginess. I relly like the multicam capability of Vegas. But I'm not willing to give up the realtime capabilities of my Storm, because my deadlines just don't allow for a slow render!

So Jeff, how do you like Avid DVXpress? Any comments as compared to Vegas or Premiere?

If Vegas is rendering the entire timeline, you definitely have something wrong. It ONLY renders the sections that need rendering such as transitions, where overlays/titles are added...

However, there IS a common cause for Vegas wanting to render everything and that is the master opacity level on the track. Sometimes it will get knocked down below 100% (like 99.8%) which you cannot visibly see a difference but will require every frame to be rendered.

I, weekly, edit a one hour tv program, it will only render about about 6 minutes worth of that footage. The remaining 54 minutes remains untouched from the original captured DV-AVI - no rendering at all is required for those 54 minutes.

Edward,

Thanks for the response. Something definately seemed wrong. I'll have to be careful with the interface.

I am still struggling to get use to the Sonic Foundry way of doing things. Vegas has so many nice features and so many odd quirks that I am still slowly working through.

Rick

I went from Premiere to Pinnacle DV7 to VV3. At the time I started VV3, it seemed a little odd. Now, when I have to go do something on AE...it just seems WAY odd...LOL.

Odd in software seems to be what ever one isn't use to. Applies to many things with the possible exception of my Uncle Louis. He's odd and that is all there is to it.

Rick

LOL

Rick,
I really like Avid, especially things like the customizable interface. It allows me and my students to configure it the way we like it individually. What I don't like is the learning curve, very steep (at least for a slow guy like me!), but I think it's mainly the un-learning Premiere thing. It does everything in a different way, and after working in Premiere for so many years (4.0 tocurrent version) it is hard to break old habits. I think it's also that I'm leaning FCP at the same time. Too much for too small a brain. As far as VV go, there are things I like about it, but I will admit that I struggle with the interface. It just seems very strange to me. If Canopus would write a driver for it though, I would make myself get over that hurdle. Also, if I could just leave Premiere behind, I think it would help me tremendously. Unfortunately, I can't do that, at least not yet.

"If Canopus ......"

Unfortunately there are so many ways to finish that sentence. If Canopus woud do almost anything interesting... Oh well. I've just about completely given up on Canopus. Love my RexRT board for color correction and such, but I've had it with Premiere. I like what I see with Vegas, so at least for now I'll use it.

Rick

Interesting thread guys, thanks for the responses. Not being a Vegas user, I was curious as to what changes were being made to the system. Looks like they made some smart choices.

The review comparing it to Avid was incorrect however. You do get realtime color correction via the Parahelia card. Which of course means you also have dual monitors with a client monitor as well. Does Vegas support three point edits and rolling trims? I was a little surprised to see it is improving it's "ripple" abilities.

I guess that's one of the advantages of Vegas, it doesn't require a specific kind of card to do real-time color correction.

To answer any questions you might have, I'd suggest you visit http://www.sonicfoundry.com/forums and select the "Vegas - Video Topics" forum.

Hope this helps.

To do real realtime you have to have the hardware. For previews Avid, FCP and Vegas can all do it.

There has been a great deal of talk over at the Sofo/VV3 forum regarding hardware support for this product. As of this point, it's still just talk. Dedicated hardware support would make the product significantly more expensive...and as processor speeds increase, the day will come where hardware support for an NLE will be passe'.

Agreed. But I need realtime (out to DV) color correction, etc. now. And I have it with my DV Storm. No one knows how soon those things will be available in software only. But based on the limitations that exist even with the hardware, I think it is a ways off. And once you've experienced the ability to do those thigs in realtime, it would be extremely difficult to go back to the renders. For me, deadlines don't allow it. If Vegas would work with my Storm, I would be really interested.

"To do real realtime you have to have the hardware. For previews Avid, FCP and Vegas can all do it."

While that may be true, only Vegas can do it over firewire to an external monitor for ALL effects without additional hardware help.

With Avid you can use a something called the "McFly" method if you have a card like a Matrox G450/550. It requires an extra video card as well and that allows you to have the preview that you normally see output to an external monitor. This preview window is not full resolution though.

Aaron, I think that was Ed's point exactly. With Vegas, and the way things are heading, you can/will be able to that with less dependency on extra hardware and/or cards, etc.. Of course, using an external NTSC [or PAL] monitor gives the editor full resolution. With Vegas, you can get that end result without all the "extras" needed.

Jay, I guess I mean taht buying a card is probably cheaper than an expensive capture card for the hardware out.

Can Vegas do external monitor output with say a Dual Head card like the 450 or 550? Could I get preview on my PC monitor and realtime output to the TV/Monitor at full res or do I have to go to firewire->cam/deck->tv?

"Jay, I guess I mean taht buying a card is probably cheaper than an expensive capture card for the hardware out."

No doubt about that!

"Can Vegas do external monitor output with say a Dual Head card like the 450 or 550?"

Sorry, Aaron, but not being at all familar with those cards, I really couldn't say one way or the other.

"Could I get preview on my PC monitor and realtime output to the TV/Monitor at full res or do I have to go to firewire->cam/deck->tv?"

The online manual for Vegas 4.0 states: " Vegas allows you to feed video directly from the timeline to a television monitor. With this feature, you can make your final editing decisions on a broadcast monitor (which differs significantly from a computer monitor) before printing the project to tape. To use an external monitor, you must have:

OHCI-compliant IEEE-1394 DV card

DV camcorder or DV-to-analog converter"

So I guess I need to take a small step backward and say that it does, to one degree or another, need some sort of "hardware," be it internal or external, to get the signal to the TV/Monitor. My original thinking was more along the lines of it does require the level of expensive hardware most other programs do to accomplish the same end, that being real-time viewing while editing without any pre-render.

My system uses a Sony DSR-30, which I already had before upgrading to Vegas Video 3.0. The DSR was originally purchased to save wear and tear on my camera (as opposed to using the camera as a deck) and as the recording device for rendered video. Regardless, you need either a camera or deck to get the tape into the CPU and you need either or to get the finished video onto tape. The deck serves as the means of getting the signal to the external TV/Monior, again saving wear and tear on my camera. So taking that into consideration, I don't consider the deck, as in my situation, as "extra" hardware.

Jay,
I don't consider my deck or video card as "extra hardware" either. So we are on the same page. Avid DOES provide realtime color correction preview out of the Parahelia card. It also provides for dual monitor support with the client monitor. Does Vegas provide that?

Both systems are "software" driven when it comes to rendering and realtime previews. When the going gets tough, Vegas drops frames, avid drops fields to get around it. Pro and cons for both choices.

"It [Avid] also provides for dual monitor support with the client monitor. Does Vegas provide that?"

Bill, a looong time ago an old fella once told me, "If you can't dazzle 'em with your brillance, baffle 'em with your b.s.."

To be honest, Janet's youngest boy has never been the brighest light on the tree. I have to admit I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "dual monitor support with the client monitor."

Perhaps I can find out, if someone else doesn't answer first.

What I mean by Dual Monitor and Client monitor is this; You get the use of two Computer monitors for your desktop... spreading out the timeline and bins and enlarging the composer monitor, while simultaneously outputing your preview to a client monitor.

Bill

Yes, Vegas has that capability.

"Can Vegas do external monitor output with say a Dual Head card like the 450 or 550?"


While you *could* put the preview window on the second monitor, it will NOT allow you to view colors correctly. The BEST way is to go out the firewire to deck/cam/convertor to TV/Video Monitor so you can see the TRUE colors of the final video output and NOT what the video card wants you to see.

"The BEST way is to go out the firewire to deck/cam/convertor to TV/Video Monitor so you can see the TRUE colors of the final video output and NOT what the video card wants you to see."

I was under the impression that was already understood in the above posts.