Bob, I'll second what you say about audio. PPro is terrible!

However, I disagree about the help; I find locating the information I want a chore when the system starts trawling!

No hard in learning it though. It's good to see how editing was done in the past. The Adobe paradigm is, IMHO, archaic.

I got totally turned off Adobe with Pagemaker back when they didn't even have much right-click stuff implemented when the rest of the world had it mastered for years.

Totally unintuitive workflows.

Maybe it's improved with the other applications that they 'bought in' rather than developed themselves....

geoff

Based on my current experience I would ditch Vegas and go Premiere at the earliest opportunity.

Premiere is a comparable product, it does some things better than Vegas but Vegas does some things better Premiere.

The main difference is that Adobe see themselves as servicing creative professionals.

From my recent experience of Vegas 11 and 12, Sony's customer service are about as helpful/useful as an outsourced Bangalore call center.

Actually that's not even fair to Bangalore call centers.

I still use Corel Draw every day., PhotoShop doesn't compare as Draw is for vector images. I've heard Corel Photo-Paint lags behind Photoshop but I'm guessing the whole Corel Suite is less than the cost of Photoshop. Photo-paint has worked OK for my basic non-vector needs.

As for using Premiere is there anything that can be done with it that can't be done with Vegas? Or rather, is there anything that you want to do that you can't find a way to do in Vegas? I only tend to look at other software when I find there is something I want to do that I can't find a way to achieve with what I have. Can the time that it will take to learn to use Premiere be more effectively used elsewhere or have you no time to lose?

Kit

I just went on a 2 month hiatus from Vegas and learned Premiere Pro CS6 in the meantime. It's super nice to not have to deal with Vegas's weird colorspace handling and the whole sRGB/cRGB dance. I've been able to get some super nice footage out of CS6 compared to my Vegas projects because the color correction is so much easier and more accurate.
Having said that, Premiere is more clunky to operate and is retard slow when it comes to rendering, compared to Vegas. I also hate having to pre-render in the timeline just to view changes in the Preview window.
I miss Vegas.

I've been learning PPro, but I'm not going to switch from Vegas. That said, my only gripes are the weird colour space and the strange dewey decimal system for determining colours (0-255 RGB anyone? I can guess what 69,105,0 is - no idea what that equates to in Vegas).

Anyway, on balance, the speed I can get projects done in Vegas mitigates any benefits of PPro...which is right up there with the clunkiest legacy old world interface thinking around).

Some + for Vegas Pro

- Mouse wheel timeline zoom
- Easier transitions (just drag clips across each other)
- Scripting
- Keeps playing when you save etc..
- Audio stuff
- Media Manager
- Cost?

Some + for Premiere Pro

- More of an industry standard
- Participation of Adobe staff in their forum
- More responsive audio scrubbing
- Automated handling of levels
- Stability, especially ref. GPU acceleration?
- Integration with other Adobe apps?
- Customer service?

Q:- Does this type of comparison with VP question appear on the PP Forums?

G

I've been told that a professional will often find Premier Pro's workflow natural and comfortable. As a pure video amateur coming from an amateur audio background (Vegas Audio), Premier Pro seems very nonintuitive and awkward. However, at the end of the day it seems to accomplish much the same taks as Vegas Pro 12.

Very bottom up comparison.

Vegas started out as an audio multitracker, think 24 track with a mixer and automation. Video got tacked onto that and vision is treated the same as audio.

PPro comes from a lineage that goes back to analog editing, think lots of replay machines and a console with a zillion buttons and knobs. Everything is frame and timecode centric, audio is just a nuuisance for another department to deal with.

Trying to meaningfully compare the two is like comparing milk and cheese, all they have in common is both come from udders :)

Now a comparison between PPro and Avid MC, that makes sense.

Bob.

Video editing aside, Adobe is a greedier company. Do you really want to work with a software suite that want's to charge you by the month?

"Video editing aside, Adobe is a greedier company. Do you really want to work with a software suite that want's to charge you by the month?"

SCS also lease software from memory, check their BD Authoring products.

Leasing Adobe's products makes a lot of sense for some businesses, I nearly ended up leasing InDesign for a month, I sure would never have bought it.

Bob.

I think a lot of long-time Vegas users will understand what I am about to say...

I own a small studio and use Vegas as my primary NLE because the interface & rendering is so much faster than PPro or FCP. I simply make more money per hour of labor because Vegas is a huge time saver for the type of work I do.

However, I also teach technology courses and recently upgraded my resume. To make my qualifications fit onto the resume I had to trim some things... I left Adobe CS6 and FCP on the resume but Vegas got cut. Why? Because most folks have never heard of VVPro.

When I introduce students to PPro & FCP I start-out by taking them back to how analog video was edited. (I show slides of large consoles with lots of knobs & sliders...) I then show how PPro & FCP provide the same control over the video using the digital interface, A/B tracks, etc. IMO this is like designing a new commercial jet that has all of the old airspeed indicators & gauges in digital form on the LCD flight panel so that pilots who flew planes in the 1970's can still fly the new ones without crashing...

Like farss said, because Vegas started-out from an audio mixer viewpoint, the way it handles video is less clunky than PPro or FCP. IMO it is much easier to learn & master to the point where it takes less time to do the same work.

If someone wants to use PPro vs Vegas they can no since PPRo CS2 is free. That's comparable to Vegas 5 in age.

"If someone wants to use PPro vs Vegas they can no since PPRo CS2 is free. That's comparable to Vegas 5 in age."

Ah, that takes me back to the old days when Vegas actually worked. ;-)

10 works great for me. :)

Really, it does. Never crashes, etc.

Just did a quick comparison of rendering times for a 5s video clip with some color grading and Vegas is destroying CS6.. 20s vs 120s. I'd switch back to Vegas in a heartbeat but I never could figure out why Vegas washed out my footage. I apply the exact same color correction in Vegas vs CS6, and Vegas always looks washed out. Any clues from you guys?

CS6 Image:
http://www.imagebam.com/image/309374234897304

Vegas Image:
http://www.imagebam.com/image/fa7026234897341

I apply the exact same color correction in Vegas vs CS6, and Vegas always looks washed out. Any clues from you guys?

Here are a "few" threads that should be of some help to you.
Dark dark video
Color correction workflow
EZ Guide to Camera Levels
Studio RGB to Computer RGB Question
coloring and scopes intro/tutorial

Mike

Thanks for your response. I've tried a few things - switching to 8-bit, applying the cRGB-sRGB plugin prior to rendering - and haven't gotten them to match yet. The CS6 render still looks more normal. I really wish Sony would fix this.

I much prefer Coreldraw to Illustrator for vector composition.
On the other hand I prefer Photoshop to Photopaint.

I've been working with Coreldraw since V3, now it's on 16. And believe it or not I think I could still work with V3 feature-wise. Funny thing is when I was using V3 it was on a 486SX 25Mhz processor. Unbearably slow, like a simple extrusion could take 10 minutes to render. Pentium 90 made it somewhat more usable. Then my Celeron 300A overlclocked to 450 made it almost enjoyable. Enjoyable came with my Pentium III 850.

Since then performance hasn't even been an issue. A good example of how compute simply blew by the application no matter what the developers added to it. But then again there was no 4x increase in working resolution along the way;)

- Mark

I too have noticed the 'Color Change' / 'Pop' when comparing Vegas & Premiere. A client may not notice it because they are not doing a side by side comparison, but I do.

I prefer Premiere's 'Old School' approach to editing apposed to Vegas' 'Timeline Editing' approach.
Video tracks on Top/Audio tracks on Bottom

I prefer Premiere's GUI.
Looks more 'Pro' & Current IMHO

I prefer Premiere's 3rd party FX options.
Mac's FXPlug architecture gives me the ability to use FX I use with FCP

I prefer Premiere's Cross-Platform ability.
More collaborative.

I prefer Premiere's 'Suite'.
Time proven to actually work with other programs I use very often.

I prefer Premiere's Industry Acceptance when compared to that of Vegas.
I'm more marketable and perceived to be more Knowledgeable & Creative

On the flip side, there are many things I prefer in Vegas as well.
I wouldn't consider any of these to be Showstoppers... just preferences developed over the years.

I do like Premiere's and FCPX darker GUI and I hope Vegas will soon have some way of making the GUI look darker while it could be adjustable just like in Premiere.