So Vegas 7 is coming out in September... Does anyone here think it will have HVX200 support? Or can confirm that it does? Anyone? Please? Lets hope...

Unlikely.? Use Cineform or Raylight.

http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=476675&Replies=19

I hope they have fixed the slow motion flickering problem. That is the only problem i find with this software, and it is a very important one.

Slow Motion flickering problem? Is this a PAL-0nly issue?

I dont know, since i have no NTSC footage.
But everytime i make 50% slow motion from a 50i stream (on a 25p project), you get the flicker.

Miguel likely means he wants a decent time remapper, like the one in After Effects.

I want keyframable effects, but who's listening?

Now I'm a bit confused. Emre, Vegas has always had keyframeable FX. Maybe you want something different than what has been there for the past 6 years?

I just hope it's more stable or has better error reporting and definition when it comes to multiple drive rendering. The 'mystery' crashes are for the birds.

Err, slip of the tongue. I meant to say I hope Vegas will support real-time, keyframable sound effects.

HDV timecode from the camera through the edit just like DV. I'm still astounded that from the creation of the HDV spec through today the TC in Firewire transfer of footage is such a mess, with no (?) NLE or HD record software able to find camera TC.

And I've heard the lame excuses, from "there is no spec" to "there is no timecode" to "it's so hard to do", I have zero patience for any of them. The TC is there and it can be done if the manufacturers will devote coders to the task. In their ignorance, sw engineering managers are deciding that the tools we've used since the dark ages of video are just not needed anymore, and it pisses me off that my trusty Vegas and DVRack don't have the same functionality for HDV that they do for DV.

Seth, while you might not buy the "excuses" as you call them, if it were easy, or even not-so-easy to provide, don't you think you'd be seeing it in ANY application?
We've looked into this for our own software or as a third-party gen tool, and it's just not that simple, not if frame-accurate is your goal. There might be some potential changes now that we're starting to see next-gen HDV tools from companies like Convergent Design, Miranda, etc.
HDV does not transmit timecode via firewire, so there has to be a regen or other means of pulling the information without using the tape. It *is* part of the HDV spec, just no one is passing it. It's a hardware manufacturer issue, not a software issue, but it's a problem all the same.

The new Sony decks seems to send TC down firewire as one feature is being able to clone a HDV tape with them, TC and all.

The new Sony decks seems to send TC down firewire as one feature is being able to clone a HDV tape with them, TC and all.

This is true, if you've got an M15 or M25U. However, frame accurate recapture isn't working in Edius, which is the only tool I've got that *should* allow for frame accurate recapture. Vegas, FCP, Premiere and Avid Express all don't capture. My M15 is a preproduction model, there is a potential of issue there, excepting that I can make dubs from M15 to M25.

Spot, thanks for your response. I guess part of the attitude that's coming through in my post stems from the discussions I've had with tech support at a couple manufacturers. I do hate it that I seem to know more about HDV timecode than tech support - it seems that there are few in these companies who understand production workflow.

Granted, the men & women of Madison have done better than almost anyone in developing a tool in Vegas that lends itself to very efficient workflow, and I do want a tool that can go as fast as I can. I recently got 3 solid days of training on FCP, very interesting, and it does shine at some things. But Vegas supports good workflow in a way that FCP doesn't touch.

What gets me is how we've been let down at every step of the way with HDV timecode, from the manufacturers developing the spec through the chain of camcorders, recorders, and post tools all the way to me. They have dropped the ball and dropped it hard, IMO.

Here we have the so-called more professional HD version of the very popular DV format. I love it, I like the pictures, I'm ok with DI, faster hardware, etc., but how could they how could they have cooked this format with less timecode functionality than DV? If anything, HDV is more likely to be used in multi-camera or double-system sound production than DV, but a major synch tool used for decades in pro video and reasonably well supported in DV is just gone.

We've looked into this for our own software or as a third-party gen tool, and it's just not that simple, not if frame-accurate is your goal. There might be some potential changes now that we're starting to see next-gen HDV tools from companies like Convergent Design, Miranda, etc.

Woe is me, would that it be so. I'd love it if VASST's efforts helped solve this problem.

Frame accurate. Well, really, what would totally satisfy me is a starting timestamp in the file header, as in the BWF timecode spec. Just that would give me all I need to easly acheive rough sync, and Vegas' sample-level slip'n'slide is extraordinary for fine sync.

HDV does not transmit timecode via firewire, so there has to be a regen or other means of pulling the information without using the tape. It *is* part of the HDV spec, just no one is passing it. It's a hardware manufacturer issue, not a software issue, but it's a problem all the same.

The information that I've received is different than this, though I really don't know if it is right. I've been told that HDV cameras do put TC up in the firewire stream, but that hardware manufacturers do not have a standard place for this info in the stream.

If so, my read is that software manufacturers have not been sufficiently motivated to write capture/transfer utilities that look for TC in the various places it has been put in the FW stream. That would be a time & money issue. But maybe your info is better and the hardware people eviscerated TC to keep prosumer gear out of professional workflows. It wouldn't be the first time.

Regardless, the manufacturers who contributed to the spec also make software. If it isn't Sony Media Software, Sony Corp. certainly deserves criticism for helping to create this mess. Forgive my attitude, but it still pisses me off!

Sony, JVC, and Canon all deserve crap for not making this a priority, no doubt.
The firewire transmits T/C, but it's in a means that it's difficult to read, so it's not accurate of me to say it's not transmitted. But reading it frame accurately is very challenging, and without frame accuracy, what's the point? I do see your time-stamp point as a valid one, and it might well be there is an answer forthcoming. :-)
IBC is just around the corner.

Dude, don't be teasing me like that :0

But thanks for allowing me to rant - apologies to the forum readers who are tired of it, already.

I will be one happy camper when this one gets solved! I started a documentary project in December that continues to shoot this year and will edit in January... all double-system sound, with a three-camera shoot coming up this december - I need timecode!

Frame accuracy is an interesting question in today's workflows with a tool like Vegas. It was so important when we were putting up reels on multiple tape machines for iso recording or for the edit in an online suite that was costing hundreds per hour. If you couldn't "match in" with frame accurate code things got very hairy fast.

Now, we'll put up three cameras that aren't even genlocked, much less master timecode jammed. But it's only a matter of a few minutes to acheive sync in post if we have rough time-of-day timecode on all the tapes (& audio recorder). And that rough t-o-d code is pretty easy to set up on the timeline, with easy sync just from rough TC to better than 15 frames. At least it was in DV. Then Vegas makes it easy to fine sync from reference audio on each camcorder.

So, really, all I'm using is the starting TC on each clip.