Vegas 8 and production philosophy at DVinfo.net

Magnus Helander · October 25th, 2007, 03:13 PM

http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/art...sp?id=186043-0

Quote:

Where other NLEs reinforce traditional workflow segmentations, Vegas makes almost no distinction between where editing ends and motion graphic compositing begins. Just as the fact that Vegas has had surround sound mixing and a 24-bit 96khz audio engine right on the same timeline as the video edit for the past five years , well ahead of audio tools in any other NLE, also shows a profound disrespect for the traditional separation of powers between video edit and sound edit.

Emre Safak · October 25th, 2007, 03:38 PM

That reads more like a promotional piece than a review.

Ian Stark · October 25th, 2007, 04:33 PM

"a tool that dares to re-think the paradigm of production itself in an environment where most other NLE developers seem content with simply making old workflows digital without a change on conceptual philosophy."

Just what I was about to say. ;-)

Seth Bloombaum · October 25th, 2007, 05:06 PM

This is a very interesting review. As I recall, Mike Jones is a regular contributor on DMN.

I think his observations are very accurate and helpful, however, there is a profound philosophical difference that dates from the earliest days of the program that he missed: Vegas split from the common practice of emulating the Avid user interface.

It's not only the single preview monitor, but also V takes the position that the editor knows how and where to save files. Avid, ProTools, FCP, a bunch of others assume that the editor is stupid and is best served by an opaque database system for file storage. (Vegas later added the Media Manager application for those that wanted to tag and search their content (V6?)).

Why not support the windows UI conventions (as Vegas does)? I don't know - I've used Avid, Premiere, FCP, MotoDV, etc. and the Vegas interface just makes sense to me. Somehow Avid decided in the early days of NLE that emulating a flatbed film editor workflow would be most acceptable to the most editors, I think the UI copycats have suffered greatly ever since.

Don't get me started on audio - I originally bought Vegas (audio) because I needed a good multitrack nondestructive audio editor for windows, and have almost never been disappointed since.

(The only issues have been when HDV came on the scene with its lack of standardization of tape/file timecode. (how could manufacturers agree to a spec that didn't include timecode???) Even this has gotten somewhat better.)

October 25th, 2007, 04:33 PM	#3
Ian Stark Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,237	"a tool that dares to re-think the paradigm of production itself in an environment where most other NLE developers seem content with simply making old workflows digital without a change on conceptual philosophy." Just what I was about to say. ;-) __________________ www.vit-media.com www.classicmachinefilms.co.uk

October 25th, 2007, 03:38 PM	#2
Emre Safak Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brookline, MA Posts: 1,447	That reads more like a promotional piece than a review.

October 25th, 2007, 05:06 PM	#4
Seth Bloombaum Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,420	This is a very interesting review. As I recall, Mike Jones is a regular contributor on DMN. I think his observations are very accurate and helpful, however, there is a profound philosophical difference that dates from the earliest days of the program that he missed: Vegas split from the common practice of emulating the Avid user interface. It's not only the single preview monitor, but also V takes the position that the editor knows how and where to save files. Avid, ProTools, FCP, a bunch of others assume that the editor is stupid and is best served by an opaque database system for file storage. (Vegas later added the Media Manager application for those that wanted to tag and search their content (V6?)). Why not support the windows UI conventions (as Vegas does)? I don't know - I've used Avid, Premiere, FCP, MotoDV, etc. and the Vegas interface just makes sense to me. Somehow Avid decided in the early days of NLE that emulating a flatbed film editor workflow would be most acceptable to the most editors, I think the UI copycats have suffered greatly ever since. Don't get me started on audio - I originally bought Vegas (audio) because I needed a good multitrack nondestructive audio editor for windows, and have almost never been disappointed since. (The only issues have been when HDV came on the scene with its lack of standardization of tape/file timecode. (how could manufacturers agree to a spec that didn't include timecode???) Even this has gotten somewhat better.)