Sick ‘em red, sick ‘em!

I’ll be your wingman. ;-)

Not that I wish the rath of Red on anybody ;) - but PLEASE!!
Not an audio app!?
Same planet, different world I guess (A/V)
B.

Hey man, and Im always calling YOU a video guy

they had no idea what they were in for

Oh, yeah I'll tear them up. You know me, it doesn't stay in one post. I'll have these guys rethinking their viewpoints.

Check this one out for the win98 discussion. I gota get my jabs in and get the facts straight for those guys over there.

http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=272052&Replies=17&Page=0

heheh...they have no idea what they have gotten themselves into....go get´em.

I'm a video guy, but understand audio is 50% or more of a good production. I've even done some audio only jobs with Vegas. Gotta love how the audio design/interface has made the video side different from every other NLE out there. BTW, Sony would have never picked up the Sofo product line if it didn't have a NLE application. And if Sony didn't buy, Vegas would be toast along with Sofo.
Anyway, there are lots of video hacks over on the video forum that need to be mellowed out. Looks like Rednroll is primed to set them straight. Watch out for Zippy and Billyboy though. Not worth your time.

Craig H.

You could probably sell tickets to a thread starring Rednroll and BillyBoy!

The sparks might fly, but you'd probably learn a thing or two from both of them.

As for Zippy, well... consider yourselves lucky he hasn't found the Audio forum. Yet.

I'm another 50/50 user, and I find it amazing that there's so little crossover between the audio and video forums. Both have been incredible resources for me as I learn about this stuff. But considering that a huge number of video folks came on board with V4, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that they're unaware of the program's history.

this suggests that more people use Vegas for video. In a relatively short period Vegas video features seem to have attracted a massive following
of video users not all of whom are overtly concerned with its' impressive audio abilities. But lets be grateful to all of these video freaks as their purchases have all but assured the survival and continued development of this fine product. So educate them gently, we owe them greatly.

never mind that I still hold you partly to blame that we didnt end up with much more advanced audio even in vegas 3, but your act of pennance taking on the video guys more than makes up for it. This is HILLARIOUS!!!

Now if we could only get DSE to capitulate

Me and my friend used Vegas 2 and 3 to make a video, just messing around, having fun with how easy it was in vegas compared to how much of a pain the LIMITED amount of video we would make with premiere.

Almost three years old now, and still selling just fine, "The Carnie and Trailer Trash Show" is still hailed by many as " The best BMX video ever made"

I dont know what these video guys could be complaining about, the only thing that couldve made it easier, is if SF made a filter that threw out all the crap of four years of footage and left you with the hour or two (or in our case 3 ) of worthwhile stuff

besides that, video in vegas is grrreat....

For one thing, consider the output types. How many of them have an audio component, compared to how many have a video component?

I'm on both sides, but actually, it was the scripting forum that converted me to audio. I got Vegas strictly for video, and was tracking mixing on DA-38's and an analog console, until that "some day" when I could afford a good recording program. Didn't realize I had one already. I sold lots of my old setup, bought a digital console and a multi-io interface, came out the richer and have a far superior recording studio.

Go back and search and you'll find that post of mine where I said something like "You mean you would use Vegas to track and mix?" It just seemed so risky or non-status quo. The overwhelming response was something like "I can't think of a reason not to use Vegas for tracking and mixing." I could dig that.

I'm from the video side but to anyone who doesn't think audio is important I seem to recall there's quite a market still for audio without pictures but it's been a long while since people went to watch silent movies.
But here's a question for the audio guys as some of you probably have more of an understanding of the innards of Vegas than the Johny Come Lately video guys. Do you feel that any of the things that you'd like Vegas to do could not be done without breaking the video side, or for that matter the other way around?
Would it be better to split the thing in two maybe?
I'm amazed every day at just what can be done within the one set of code so I'm not being critical in any way, just wondering how far the envelope can get pushed.

The numer of posts at the vv side doesnt tell you anything except that the video guys have a harder time figuring out how to do things.

Not a lot of questions need to be asked about the audio side of things

"Would it be better to split the thing in two maybe?"

I think your question has already been answered in that the video guys don't even know that Vegas is a powerful audio editor and the audio users don't seem to complaining about the video features. I strictly do audio and I just close the video preview, media generators, video fx's, video scopes, and transition pages and then resize my mixer window to fit all my soundcard outputs and I can hardly tell it's a video editor. Now if Vegas could be a quicker, more rock solid audio app because it doesn't have all the extra video feature overhead in it, that's a better question that I wouldn't be able to answer.

Yep, Red that's the thing that makes me laugh about the video guys... and makes me happy. Close down that video stuff like you said, which I'm sure most here do, and Vegas just looks and behaves like a DAW. I mean the truth is that it is a DAW with video stuff 'bolted on', albiet very well.

I still do think, from a marketing point of view, there's definitely a lot to be said for splitting the program into 2. Or at least having an option on initial start up to configure for video or audio. For audio newbies, I think opening up Vegas for the first time probably scares them off - they're like "this is a video program". It's tragic that Vegas doesn't make more inroads in the wider audio community. If Sony aggresively pushed Vegas in the audio press, etc, I'm sure, with V5, they'd get countless Pro Tools convertees. Marketed properly, I think Vegas 5 could really shake things up.

Ben

Actually, the VV forum has more posts because there used to only be one forum. A couple years ago they made a seperate VA forum, so it hasn't filled up as fast.

After spending a couple days in the Vegas Video forum, I have to tell you that the posts do come in more quickly, and a post that I made an hour ago, get's easily shuffled down to the bottom. I'm not fully convinced though if that's because there's more Video users, or they just litter the forum with useless posts like these:

Excuse Me, But...
http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=272442&Replies=17&Page=0

How Vegas 5 is Like Angelina Jolie...
http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=272523&Replies=25&Page=0

I have to say though, I have educated a few of the video users on the audio features and they're now rethinking what Vegas is all about. I think that's a good thing. I worked with Video editors in the past who came to me to add audio to their video work, where I used Vegas. They had been working on an Avid and Adobe Premiere and I saw their jaws drop to the floor when I showed them how easy it was to edit video in Vegas 3.0, compared to how they where currently doing it. So, I'm sure I sold a few versions of Vegas to Video editors, who had never heard of it before. I think in educating those video people about the Vegas audio features can have the same effect, when they can show the audio editors they work with, how Vegas can kick the ass of their Protools system they're currently using at a fraction of the price.