yeah, at the time they were more specific. But all their preferred settings were for mac fcp and it just didnt work with vegas. In the end i remember i had to print to tape and send a DV in the post. :(

Paul.

You are from a slightly different culture--a PC centric, Vegas culture. Other people are from a Mac-centric culture. It's just a cultural difference, like how Italians are quite different in many ways from folks living in the UK.

As for bugs, I can't help you other than to note that Vegas seems to be a lot more tender these days. Me, I'm stuck back in the stone ages on 7d, because (a) it's bulletproof, (b) I'm very familiar with it after all these years, and (c) it suits my current production needs adequately.

I have no, zero, nada interest in doing paying gigs with software that might still need debugging. But I guess my needs are simple, and there are lots of users here that love VP11 and have no issues with it.

I hear what you're saying Paul. Many clients think that FCP is all there is, although Premiere Pro is on more people's radar now and seems to be first port of call for disillusioned FCP users jumping ship. It's sad that Vegas doesn't appear to be picking up those users as much as Adobe is.

Vegas is brilliant for one man bands who can deal with it's foibles and don't need to hire editors or converse a lot with production houses etc.. But since version 8 it's steadily been losing its reputation for reliability in the quest to add more features. I really hope SCS spend time consolidating now, attempt to get it back to stability, and enhance the existing stuff rather than adding more and more. They should be all-out working on stamping out the "replaced clips" and "black clips" bugs, but I bet most of the coding team is probably already working on getting new features into version 12.

As for outputting stuff to Mac people, this is how I see it:

Step 1: Install Quicktime 7.6.2, the last version most likely to be stable across a range of Vegas versions.
Step 2: Try and get the file recipient to install and accept Avid DNxHD files, then use that.
Step 3: Otherwise send them Photo JPEG .mov for progressive footage, or Motion JPEG for interlaced. 90% quality is a good compromise of file size vs quality.

i agree with nick, vegas is great for a one person band - nothing comes close, but as the op says:

We don't even know where to set our RAM preview setting to, it changes for everyones system and project

it's idiosyncrasies, like this, with NO help or guidance from scs that makes vegas a hard sell to many potential users. after 10+ years using vegas i STILL don't understand ram settings in preview, and have yet to read anyone here who can state unequivocally that for x os system with x ram installed you need x ram for preview....

If someone asked what you were editing on and you said Avid or FCP they'd node sagely and most likely you'd not be self conscious. What if you said Edius? How would you feel about giving that answer? Would that be different from answering "Vegas"? I use Edius as an example here because it's probably got the least preconceptions attached to it.

Maybe the problem with answering "Vegas" is that you're just not quite sure it's a good answer. Really, it's not your job to feel totally confident in Vegas, it's SCS' job to inspire that confidence.

So what would it take for SCS to inspire that confidence in Vegas as a professional tool?

<edit>

To a certain extent, software involves a certain amount of storytelling or "messaging". For example, the RAM Preview setting tells the story of a tunable and tweakable Vegas.This leads to constant fiddling. The setting could be presented in other ways though. For instance, Windows has a performance option to "allocate processor resources" either for best performance of Programs or Background services. It's just two choices and much simpler than a slider.

Beyond the story that the interface tells, it seems like there's just plainly a failure of marketing communication about Vegas. The impression I keep getting after releases is that there's a lot that wasn't caught in testing. People's reception of this would be quite different if these first few builds were labeled as Betas or Release Candidates. I think they could even charge the same discounted price for the release candidate, and then bump it up a bit for the official release. As it is, they've subtly changed the story by calling these releases by their build numbers instead of a, b, c, d, e, etc.

And of course people might see it all a bit differently if there was very active participation from SCS on this forum.

</edit>

Rob Mack

I'm in full agreement with Paul. I love Vegas. I also own the full Adobe Master Collection (hate Premiere) and am trying to learn the new FCP X, but I love Vegas. But after buying every Vegas upgrade since Vegas 5, I can no longer deal with ALL of the instability, questions, crashes that come with a Vegas upgrade. I'm sitting out version 11. Version 10 works fine for me, and right now I don't need an improvement in rendering time and I don't need a new titler. I'll keep my eye on how version 12 plays out whenever it's released.

Instead of upgrading to Vegas 11, I spent the money on a great deal with the Red Giant Magic Bullet Suite that I can use with the other NLE's I have. Sorry, Sony. Love ya... but skipping this dance.

I need to chime in here. Let me say I can relate to the frustrations that a crash can bring and sadly they sometimes come at the least convenient time.

That being said for every headache there is surely an accomplishment. I have been using Vegas since version 3 and have upgraded with each new release mostly because of the "very" reasonable price. While I am that one man band, I make my living by using Vegas.

This is just a reminder, not all instability issues are caused by the software. In my experience I have had two scenarios where my system was crashing while using Vegas.

Rendering with an XP1900 processor - The processor had heating issues and would reboot the system only while rendering.

RAM - Don't remember the specifics, but after repreated crahses, replaced the RAM and never had an issue again.

Yes, Sony has areas to improve on and hopefully that is an on going basis. Lets remember though as editors we need to always be aware of and refining our work flow. Just like a release we should also have our Plan A... Plan B... Plan C in place that is what our clients are also paying us for.

- Chad

Another quick observation. It's impossible to make Vegas fool proof. Fools will always find a way around that.

In general, I agree with the tenor of the above comments. I have used a number of other NLEs including Premiere, but nothing comes close to Vegas for getting a great job done quickly. I started with V3 and got ever single upgrade. Except 11. I, too, pass by this time.

For stable editing, nothing beats V8c. 7d also was pretty good, but 8c has some additional capabilities; so why settle for 7d?

But after spending perhaps a few hundred hours trying to get 8c to render long, complex projects - and on several different machines including the long-recommended Intel MB with a single-core cpu - I finally concluded that this dog isn't going to hunt. No amount of replacing RAM or other tinkering changed the picture one bit. I never did even come close to getting a complete render.

But when the later versions of V9-64 bit appeared, every one of my rendering problems faded into mere bad memories. So do not believe the rumors that Vegas is unstable. If you stick to 8c for editing and 9xx-64 bits for rendering, you'll rarely have a nasty surprise while editing or rendering. Almost as good is 9xx-32 bits if you must render something that uses 32-bit plugins. It's a shame that new people may not be able to get those rock-solid versions of Vegas and get so turned off that they abandon this marvelous software.

Though I'm admittedly a Sony Vegas zealot what strikes me most by some of the comments in this thread is the amount of skepticism if not resentment of V11 by those who clearly stated they haven't even tried it.

I have no earthly clue how many people have bought Vegas 11 or how many have used the trial version but it boggles my mind how it seems with each new version people love to throw around the term that we're "beta testers", or even go so far as TLF in flat out insulting beta testers. With all due respect you can't stand by that statement. How is a beta tester supposed to know what will or wont work on YOUR system? How are they, or Sony for that matter, supposed to tackle every configuration and possible scenario that a customer may later discover? Trust me I've had my fair share of Vegas weirdness and have been around since Sonic Foundry days, some were software, many turned out to be my own hardware which more often than not I would have NEVER thought in a million years would have produced the symptoms I encountered. From power supplies that went bad (though to me my computer turned on so how is it the power supply?) to weird bios memory timing settings that I still don't understand the amount of variables is countless. My point is that I have yet to see any type of robust software from NLE's to operating systems to PC games that didn't have some sort of bugs for a period of time after launch, and some of them never get fixed.

I'm not trying to attack anyone or say that when someone has a legitimate issue or runs into problem like Paul they don't have a right to be upset, been there done that. What I am saying is that it's not a bad idea to let cooler heads prevail and simply regurgitating issues that someone else in another thread reported is just silly. To attack the programers and/or beta testers is, to me, an illegitimate complaint. It implies that either or both simply ignored known issues and blasted it out anyway instead of recognizing that software is a tricky tricky business in which there are literally millions of potential configurations and needs that no company can account for before releasing it and getting mass market feedback, period. Reporting bugs is part of the process, venting is human nature, bashing for the sake of bashing is counterproductive to all involved. I trust the fact that when new bugs arise someone at SCS cringes and that they are hard at work trying to implement the fixes necessary to resolve known issues. Again, they could not address issues before release that they were not aware of, I can't for the life of me understand how anyone would think they could.

- Ray
Underground Planet

Ray: AMEN!

Ditto!

/Ulf

A real "Ray o' Light!"

Thanks Matey.

- g

Oh yes, TFL, I meant to ask: how do you know that BETA Testers aren't also reporting the same/similar issues? I've recently completed some extensive BETA testing for a 3rd party plugin vendor. And that has been both illuminating and creative. BUT I did have to sign an NDA to allow me to test. One of the stipulations was that I couldn't refer to it in any comms I made. Don't you think, TFL, that would be the same for SCS too? If you do, then continuing to criticise the testers won't get you anywhere, as their lips would be sealed on the matters you raise. Do you understand that? So continuing to do so is without value. And to use your analogy, using that tack is ignoring the NDA strictures, is like falling into the "Emporer's Clothes" too? You're ignoring the strictures that BETA testers fall under.

Does that help you?

Cheers

- g

i'm with grazie on this one. i too have been, and am, a beta tester for a number of companies, both hardware and software.

nda's are quite serious agreements, and though i'm sure many testers would love to jump in and say something about such and such a thing, they simply can't.

i know from experience that the companies i've beta tested for have ALWAYS attempted to replicate any 'problem' i might have encountered immediately and feedback between testers is shared, so others can try to replicate any 'problems'. i use the term 'problem' rather than bug because if no one else can replicate it, it isn't necessarily a bug, it could well be in my / their setup, etc.,

however, what does matter is the number of beta testers involved, and the 'depth' they push testing to. after all, i hardly every do green screen work anymore, so i wouldn't be much use checking out chroma-keying....

meanwhile i have no doubt scs will sort things out as they've done with previous releases, the only added problem being that nowadays anyone can build themselves an umphy pc WITHOUT actually knowing enough about the suitability of components relative to each other, and their combined suitability for use in an nle - this is another area where scs has at least made some concrete attempt to set equipment specs by producing ready made systems.

another bug bear at the moment is scs's lack of information regarding preview ram usage, which according to the numerous posts, seems equally mystifying to a few others as well ;)

Thanks everyone for your comments on this. I wasnt aiming to start a heated discussion.
After a break, I have now stepped back from Vegas 11 and got on with other tasks. My editing is not my income unlike a lot of you on here, its more for pleasure and learning with the odd paying job from time to time. So I have no need to get upset about crashing, GPU on off states or RAM settings. But I am saying that I have spent a lot of money and time in the process of upgrading, not just software upgrades from 9 but also hardware including my latest purchase - GTX570.
Nows here's an example of "sending out the wrong signal" to quote myself. Initially, Sony stated very clearly that GPU cards only with a compute value of 2 or more would give GPU acceleration in Vegas. So.. like others, I went out and bought a new card. At about £300. Next, just the other day i see this comment from Sony, release build 425 now allows GPU compute values from 1 and up. Errm, thats nice, but i just bought a new card? 425 was released just 2-3 weeks after the initial release. And it had some 30 BUGS fixed in that time.
In the end, the new card IS faster than the one i already had. But, if Sony had mentioned this was comming from the start, I may have just waited.
30 bugs fixed in 2 weeks. Now it depends on your viewpoint. Some would say brilliant work Sony, bravo, super fast. Other would say, where are the beta testers? why release with bugs? That is for everyone to decide for themselves. But, remember, Sony do read these posts, and sometimes even comment, and they do read people issues and bugs and act upon them. So by definition of acting upon clients' bug reports - we ARE beta testers. by definition. Historiclly, the first release of a new Vegas version is always buggy. But v11 seems particularly bad this time. Some of these bugs in my opinion are basic, and should have been picked up in beta (pre-release) testing. Thats where the doubt sets in for me. They were not seen in pre release testing? Example, did knowone see the bug 'i cant import v10 projects in v11' ? I am not judging the scs beta team, thet do what they can im sure, but what is scs doing with this data?
Whether it is their intent to operate this why is a matter of debate. Maybe they simply dont have enough beta testers, maybe Sony SCS cannot react fast enough to bugs. I dont know. And my first statment "Im not sure" still reflects my feelings towards Vegas at this time. But Im probably not important enough in the scheme of things, a small fish in the sea, a non-commercial editor, for anyone to listen to.
Thats fine. Just saying what i see. And if SCS listen, good for them.
Closing statement to SCS. Get your initial releases working as best as you can before going live, currently you are not doing that. Be more clear to your clients about up coming features and fix existing old bugs before even trying to build in even more new features.

Of couse, all said from a small fish.
Paul.

We haven't even gotten the ".a" update yet, the update that they did release was mostly about being able to use nVidia cards with Compute Capability less than 2.0. The way this has always worked is that the ".a" release happens about a month after the initial release and it usually fixes a lot of issues that could not possibly have been caught until the general Vegas user-base got their hands on it. Come on guys, Vegas v11 is a MAJOR rewrite of the internal code.

Seriously, if you have an issue, report it through the official channel with as much detail as possible, SCS wants every version to be just as bug free just as much as any of their users. Posts on the forum like "Vegas Sux" or "Screw You" can't make Vegas a better program (or the forum a friendlier place.) Besides, the programmers are people, too, that take pride in their work. I would like them to remain motivated and glad to go to work.

Well said Paul, Leslie and John.

- g

Maybe someone can sit down and figure out how many million operations Vegas can perform with all formats and equipment configurations. It might be as many as the national debt. Even preparing a "Vegas" programmers test program to fully test the operation of all of the possible functions seems to me as insurmountable.
JJK

Paul,

I'm in the same boat as you when it comes to editing. I didn't see your post as "negative" but thought it more as "venting". When you get so frustrated it's hard to just back off and move on without some form of "releasing the pressure" at the moment. That was obviously, to me, what your post was.

Better doing that than going out and getting "three sheets to the wind"!!!

TomG

Sounds as rational as LAVA Music saying that they want 'atmospheric music', but only from bands that use Yamaha synthesisers.

geoff

I think Paul's being a little unfair aboout the extension of GPU acceleration as the original rlease notes included the following:-

"nVIDIA GPUs with Compute Capability prior to 2.0 are currently not available for GPU-accelerated video processing. We are working with nVIDIA and hope to be able to expand GPU acceleration in the future. See this Web page for a list of Compute Capability levels for various nVIDIA GPUs: http://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus."

sony-366.vo.llnwd.net/dspcdn/releasenotes/vegaspro11_readme_enu.htm

(With thanks to Joran Toresen who identified this for me in another thread).

Richards