Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Vegas Video & the Movie Industry

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 25, 2005 10:28:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Final Cut Pro boasts that it is used in the Professional Movie
industry. From TV to Network Commercials to Hollywood Movies.
(At least in part of these projects)

Does anyone know if SonyPictures Vegas Video can make similar claims?
I personally feel it is a superior product or at least
at par with FCP as far as features & Audio/Video Quality.
If there is anyone out there on the inside and knows what claims to
fame Vegas Video can make I would like to hear from them.

Thanks,
Rick
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 1:42:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <1106666930.751085.319740@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Rick" <Rick_Warda@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Final Cut Pro boasts that it is used in the Professional Movie
> industry. From TV to Network Commercials to Hollywood Movies.
> (At least in part of these projects)
>
> Does anyone know if SonyPictures Vegas Video can make similar claims?
> I personally feel it is a superior product or at least
> at par with FCP as far as features & Audio/Video Quality.
> If there is anyone out there on the inside and knows what claims to
> fame Vegas Video can make I would like to hear from them.
>
> Thanks,
> Rick

No network level programs that I've know about are cutting with Vegas -
but don't forget that does NOT indicate that the program isn't capable
of network level work.

It's just that the production industry at that level is VERY slow to
change.

With feature and network TV levels of money on the line, the toolset is
a minor consideration relative to the dependability of the vendor using
it.

FCP has made inroads because it's been around nearly six years, and was
a "right tool at the right time" product to interest the young cutters
coming up in the industry. They couldn't afford "home AVIDS" so they
went with FCP.

Those "early adopting" kids are now moving into responsible positions in
the industry.

And they're bringing their toolset with them.

Vegas is certainly equally capable, and even superior in some areas
(sound mixing, for example) but has to contend with the fact that FCP
already has an extremely strong foothold in the "affordable professional
editing" space.

Another toolset won't necessarily compete by being "as good" it must be
compellingly superior in some area to encourage pros to switch - like
FCP was in one arena on it's debut - price/features vs AVID.

Absent that, I'd imagine the only way for Vegas to make inroads in
Hollywood is to capture the loyalty of a significant number of
"boutique" cutters who end up making it into Hollywood on the basis of
their skills.

They too will bring their preferred toolset with them.

Simple as that, I think.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 9:04:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <newvideo-9743D3.10423825012005@news.west.cox.net>,
newvideo@fastq.com says...
> And they're bringing their toolset with them.
>
> Vegas is certainly equally capable, and even superior in some areas
> (sound mixing, for example) but has to contend with the fact that FCP
> already has an extremely strong foothold in the "affordable professional
> editing" space.
>
> Another toolset won't necessarily compete by being "as good" it must be
> compellingly superior in some area to encourage pros to switch - like
> FCP was in one arena on it's debut - price/features vs AVID.
>
> Absent that, I'd imagine the only way for Vegas to make inroads in
> Hollywood is to capture the loyalty of a significant number of
> "boutique" cutters who end up making it into Hollywood on the basis of
> their skills.
>
> They too will bring their preferred toolset with them.
>
> Simple as that, I think.
>

Is Premiere not even in the picture these days?
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Related resources
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 9:30:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Chris Phillipo" <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c606265f5289c5798a8e6@news.eastlink.ca...
> In article <newvideo-9743D3.10423825012005@news.west.cox.net>,
> newvideo@fastq.com says...
>> And they're bringing their toolset with them.
>>
>> Vegas is certainly equally capable, and even superior in some areas
>> (sound mixing, for example) but has to contend with the fact that FCP
>> already has an extremely strong foothold in the "affordable professional
>> editing" space.
>>
>> Another toolset won't necessarily compete by being "as good" it must be
>> compellingly superior in some area to encourage pros to switch - like
>> FCP was in one arena on it's debut - price/features vs AVID.
>>
>> Absent that, I'd imagine the only way for Vegas to make inroads in
>> Hollywood is to capture the loyalty of a significant number of
>> "boutique" cutters who end up making it into Hollywood on the basis of
>> their skills.
>>
>> They too will bring their preferred toolset with them.
>>
>> Simple as that, I think.
>>
>
> Is Premiere not even in the picture these days?


Bill is a FCP diehard.

Of course Premiere is in the fold. I just sent a commercial off this morning
for the Golf Channel. .Cut in Premiere. LOTS of people use it.











> --
> _________________________
> Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
> http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 6:35:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

nap wrote:

> "Chris Phillipo" <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c606265f5289c5798a8e6@news.eastlink.ca...
>
>>In article <newvideo-9743D3.10423825012005@news.west.cox.net>,
>>newvideo@fastq.com says...
>>
>>>And they're bringing their toolset with them.
>>>
>>>Vegas is certainly equally capable, and even superior in some areas
>>>(sound mixing, for example) but has to contend with the fact that FCP
>>>already has an extremely strong foothold in the "affordable professional
>>>editing" space.
>>>
>>>Another toolset won't necessarily compete by being "as good" it must be
>>>compellingly superior in some area to encourage pros to switch - like
>>>FCP was in one arena on it's debut - price/features vs AVID.
>>>
>>>Absent that, I'd imagine the only way for Vegas to make inroads in
>>>Hollywood is to capture the loyalty of a significant number of
>>>"boutique" cutters who end up making it into Hollywood on the basis of
>>>their skills.
>>>
>>>They too will bring their preferred toolset with them.
>>>
>>>Simple as that, I think.
>>>
>>
>>Is Premiere not even in the picture these days?
>
>
>
> Bill is a FCP diehard.

Says the man who spends all his time locating people who post about FCP,
so you can then inject your smack about it..

Bill
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 6:41:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Rick wrote:

> Final Cut Pro boasts that it is used in the Professional Movie
> industry. From TV to Network Commercials to Hollywood Movies.
> (At least in part of these projects)
>
> Does anyone know if SonyPictures Vegas Video can make similar claims?
> I personally feel it is a superior product or at least
> at par with FCP as far as features & Audio/Video Quality.
> If there is anyone out there on the inside and knows what claims to
> fame Vegas Video can make I would like to hear from them.
>
> Thanks,
> Rick


Correct me if I'm wrong, but Vegas isn't a film editor, it's only a DV
editor. It doesn't even do HD as far as I know either.. I could be
wrong here though.

-Richard
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 10:38:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Kill Bill" <billcentery@NOSPAM88.com> wrote in message
news:5eEJd.38984$ju.6919@news.easynews.com...
> nap wrote:
>
>> "Chris Phillipo" <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1c606265f5289c5798a8e6@news.eastlink.ca...
>>
>>>In article <newvideo-9743D3.10423825012005@news.west.cox.net>,
>>>newvideo@fastq.com says...
>>>
>>>>And they're bringing their toolset with them.
>>>>
>>>>Vegas is certainly equally capable, and even superior in some areas
>>>>(sound mixing, for example) but has to contend with the fact that FCP
>>>>already has an extremely strong foothold in the "affordable professional
>>>>editing" space.
>>>>
>>>>Another toolset won't necessarily compete by being "as good" it must be
>>>>compellingly superior in some area to encourage pros to switch - like
>>>>FCP was in one arena on it's debut - price/features vs AVID.
>>>>
>>>>Absent that, I'd imagine the only way for Vegas to make inroads in
>>>>Hollywood is to capture the loyalty of a significant number of
>>>>"boutique" cutters who end up making it into Hollywood on the basis of
>>>>their skills.
>>>>
>>>>They too will bring their preferred toolset with them.
>>>>
>>>>Simple as that, I think.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Is Premiere not even in the picture these days?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill is a FCP diehard.
>
> Says the man who spends all his time locating people who post about FCP,
> so you can then inject your smack about it..
>
> Bill

My response to the question was more relevant than your little rant about
me.



>
>
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 1:18:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <jfwJd.5826$8Z1.2016@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
"nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote:

> "Chris Phillipo" <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c606265f5289c5798a8e6@news.eastlink.ca...
> > In article <newvideo-9743D3.10423825012005@news.west.cox.net>,
> > newvideo@fastq.com says...
> >> And they're bringing their toolset with them.
> >>
> >> Vegas is certainly equally capable, and even superior in some areas
> >> (sound mixing, for example) but has to contend with the fact that FCP
> >> already has an extremely strong foothold in the "affordable professional
> >> editing" space.
> >>
> >> Another toolset won't necessarily compete by being "as good" it must be
> >> compellingly superior in some area to encourage pros to switch - like
> >> FCP was in one arena on it's debut - price/features vs AVID.
> >>
> >> Absent that, I'd imagine the only way for Vegas to make inroads in
> >> Hollywood is to capture the loyalty of a significant number of
> >> "boutique" cutters who end up making it into Hollywood on the basis of
> >> their skills.
> >>
> >> They too will bring their preferred toolset with them.
> >>
> >> Simple as that, I think.
> >>
> >
> > Is Premiere not even in the picture these days?
>
>
> Bill is a FCP diehard.
>
> Of course Premiere is in the fold. I just sent a commercial off this morning
> for the Golf Channel. .Cut in Premiere. LOTS of people use it.
>

OK, but the QUESTION wasn't about doing golf channel commercials - it
was about people using it for NETWORK LEVEL programming and FEATURE FILM
Production.

Nobody questions that Vegas and Premier each do TONS of professional
level work - "golf channel commercials" being a fine example.

But that's not what the original poster asked about.

He was interested in whether VEGAS specifically has MAJOR MOVIE and
EPISODIC NETWORK LEVEL credits similar to FCP's.

I believe the answer still remains "no" - at least at present.

I'm not sure what's particularly "diehard" about reporting such a fact,
but in nappy's world, perhaps there are "good facts" and "bad facts" and
he just can't come to grips with this one.

One of those "never let the facts get in the way of your opinion"
things, perhaps?
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 9:25:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"William Davis" <newvideo@fastq.com> wrote in message
news:newvideo-5A1CF8.22180526012005@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <jfwJd.5826$8Z1.2016@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> "nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote:
>
>> "Chris Phillipo" <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1c606265f5289c5798a8e6@news.eastlink.ca...
>> > In article <newvideo-9743D3.10423825012005@news.west.cox.net>,
>> > newvideo@fastq.com says...
>> >> And they're bringing their toolset with them.
>> >>
>> >> Vegas is certainly equally capable, and even superior in some areas
>> >> (sound mixing, for example) but has to contend with the fact that FCP
>> >> already has an extremely strong foothold in the "affordable
>> >> professional
>> >> editing" space.
>> >>
>> >> Another toolset won't necessarily compete by being "as good" it must
>> >> be
>> >> compellingly superior in some area to encourage pros to switch - like
>> >> FCP was in one arena on it's debut - price/features vs AVID.
>> >>
>> >> Absent that, I'd imagine the only way for Vegas to make inroads in
>> >> Hollywood is to capture the loyalty of a significant number of
>> >> "boutique" cutters who end up making it into Hollywood on the basis of
>> >> their skills.
>> >>
>> >> They too will bring their preferred toolset with them.
>> >>
>> >> Simple as that, I think.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Is Premiere not even in the picture these days?
>>
>>
>> Bill is a FCP diehard.
>>
>> Of course Premiere is in the fold. I just sent a commercial off this
>> morning
>> for the Golf Channel. .Cut in Premiere. LOTS of people use it.
>>
>
> OK, but the QUESTION wasn't about doing golf channel commercials - it
> was about people using it for NETWORK LEVEL programming and FEATURE FILM
> Production.
>

There's a difference?

I live in LA and I can tell you , Bill.. as I have time and time again,
people use EVERYTHING to create media network or not.


> Nobody questions that Vegas and Premier each do TONS of professional
> level work - "golf channel commercials" being a fine example.
>
> But that's not what the original poster asked about.
>
> He was interested in whether VEGAS specifically has MAJOR MOVIE and
> EPISODIC NETWORK LEVEL credits similar to FCP's.
>
> I believe the answer still remains "no" - at least at present.


How would you know ? Isn't Scottsdale a little out of the loop?

OP: "From TV to Network Commercials to Hollywood Movies.(At least in part of
these projects)"


>
> I'm not sure what's particularly "diehard" about reporting such a fact,
> but in nappy's world, perhaps there are "good facts" and "bad facts" and
> he just can't come to grips with this one.

What is diehard about it is that you are simply a walking Apple ad. You told
us all about the folks from Water & Power who like FCP. That's nice. I talk
and work with people making features every day. It is not the pleasure zone
you say it is. Especially 4.5


>
> One of those "never let the facts get in the way of your opinion"
> things, perhaps?

no, 'teach'. Sorry. From your vantage point in Arizona.. maybe you get this
from the trades. I work here.
The facts are as I say they are. The ads are as you say they are.
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 9:50:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <newvideo-5A1CF8.22180526012005@news.west.cox.net>,
newvideo@fastq.com says...
> OK, but the QUESTION wasn't about doing golf channel commercials - it
> was about people using it for NETWORK LEVEL programming and FEATURE FILM
> Production.
>

Generally when I see that a movie was cut by a PC/Mac, I'm not impressed
I'm just thinking the guy didn't have a budget to work with. Are we
talking films that arn't in the "Indie" category here?
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 1:28:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>
> >
> > I'm not sure what's particularly "diehard" about reporting such a fact,
> > but in nappy's world, perhaps there are "good facts" and "bad facts" and
> > he just can't come to grips with this one.
>
> What is diehard about it is that you are simply a walking Apple ad. You told
> us all about the folks from Water & Power who like FCP. That's nice. I talk
> and work with people making features every day. It is not the pleasure zone
> you say it is. Especially 4.5
>
>
> >
> > One of those "never let the facts get in the way of your opinion"
> > things, perhaps?
>
> no, 'teach'. Sorry. From your vantage point in Arizona.. maybe you get this
> from the trades. I work here.
> The facts are as I say they are. The ads are as you say they are.


Okay, nappy. Post some proof that I'm wrong.

List for us the major studio films with a budget of, say, $10million
plus cut on anything but Avid or FCP...

For the record the multi-million$ Cold Mountain was edited by Walter
Murch on Final Cut Pro. Most of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
was both pre-visualized, pitched, SOLD and edited using FCP. And I think
I heard that DeCaprio's Aviator was also, but I could be wrong about
that.

The Avid list is obviously way too long to describe.

I'm not baiting you, nap, I'm sincerely interested (as I'm sure others
are here) on what the PROS are using for high budget editing.

Since you're working so closely in the Hollywood film industry, you're
in a position to know what people are using to cut their feature films.

So you're up... What's on our local cinema screens cut on Vegas, or
Premier, or anything other than Avid or FCP?

(sincerely interested)
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 3:12:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Maybe the story titled "Using Vegas, Excalibur & SD-Connect to Edit the 2005
Stellar Awards" at http://tinyurl.com/6a74a will show Mac users just how
good Vegas really is.

From the article:
In this article, Creative Cow's Timothy Duncan explores how Northstar
Studios used Sony Vegas, the Excalibur plug-in's multi-cam wizard for Vegas
and Convergent Design's SD-Connect video converter to help create this
year's 20th Annual Stellar Awards broadcast -- a ten camera shoot recorded
January 15th in Houston, Texas.
The 20th Annual Stellar Awards is in syndication and now airing nationwide
around the country. Although this project was finished on an Avid|DS system,
the offline was done using Sony Vegas and the Excalibur plug-in utilizing
its Multi Camera Wizard.

Special note here to all Mac users.
Excalibur (the multi-cam tool) is only $99.00. MultiCam for FCP is $295.00.
And Tim had all 11 camera angles on the timeline simultaneously.
Excalibur can have up to a 25 camera multi-cam view.
According to the MultiCam review at http://tinyurl.com/47cb3, FCP can only
do 3 :-(
Don't worry guys, you'll catch up some day :-)

BTW, Timothy Duncan is the same guy who edited a 5-camera Sheryl Crow video
in under an hour while on a flight from Chicago to L.A. in May of last year.
Details of that story are at http://tinyurl.com/4ugsn
Mac users should pay particular attention to Tim's comments in post #17.


Mike
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 3:12:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <35tvu0F4pe4g7U1@individual.net>,
"Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Maybe the story titled "Using Vegas, Excalibur & SD-Connect to Edit the 2005
> Stellar Awards" at http://tinyurl.com/6a74a will show Mac users just how
> good Vegas really is.
>
> From the article:
> In this article, Creative Cow's Timothy Duncan explores how Northstar
> Studios used Sony Vegas, the Excalibur plug-in's multi-cam wizard for Vegas
> and Convergent Design's SD-Connect video converter to help create this
> year's 20th Annual Stellar Awards broadcast -- a ten camera shoot recorded
> January 15th in Houston, Texas.
> The 20th Annual Stellar Awards is in syndication and now airing nationwide
> around the country. Although this project was finished on an Avid|DS system,
> the offline was done using Sony Vegas and the Excalibur plug-in utilizing
> its Multi Camera Wizard.
>
> Special note here to all Mac users.
> Excalibur (the multi-cam tool) is only $99.00. MultiCam for FCP is $295.00.
> And Tim had all 11 camera angles on the timeline simultaneously.
> Excalibur can have up to a 25 camera multi-cam view.
> According to the MultiCam review at http://tinyurl.com/47cb3, FCP can only
> do 3 :-(
> Don't worry guys, you'll catch up some day :-)
>
> BTW, Timothy Duncan is the same guy who edited a 5-camera Sheryl Crow video
> in under an hour while on a flight from Chicago to L.A. in May of last year.
> Details of that story are at http://tinyurl.com/4ugsn
> Mac users should pay particular attention to Tim's comments in post #17.
>
>
> Mike

Mike,

It sounds interesting and obviously Vegas has a lot of capabilities...

But a Gospel music Grammys-type show produced by a Chicago outfit out of
Houston Texas - while certainly a legitimate national credit - doesn't
really (IMO) rise to the level of major national release movies,
episodic TV and other credits we're discussing here.

The "Steller" awards appear to air on PAX (Christian) TV and in
"syndication" nationwide. I'm not taking anything away from the faith
community and I know that as a group they spends HUGELY on Broadcast
technology.

I'll also give you that that makes the reference a ligitimate "national"
program.

And I'd even happily agree that this is evidence that Vegas's influence
is growing.

But I still don't think it's fair to compare Vegas - at least in terms
of real current credits - with FCP, and, CERTAINLY not AVID.

Remember, I'm NOT saying that Vegas isn't fine software or that it's
multi-cam - and OTHER - abilities aren't exceptional.

But the current discussion was generated by someone asking about whether
Vegas CURRENTLY HAS the same kind of credits that Avid and to a much
lesser extent, FCP have. And I don't think any rational reading of the
facts argues that it does - at least at present.

Given a few years, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Vegas keeps making
inroads - but I don't think anybody can rationally argue that it's
sweeping away Avid shops at the rate that FCP has for the past few
years. If I'm wrong about this, somebody enlighten me. But I've heard
CONSTANT stories about former Avid shops that have gone FCP. And to a
significantly lesser extent, former Avid editors that are now cutting on
Premier.

Perhaps because it's some years newer, I've heard MUCH less about former
Avid shops that have switched to Vegas. (Tho I agree that those that
have, generally seem to LOVE the program at just about the same level
of zealotry as the FCP camp! ;) 

Again, if someone has FACTS to indicate otherwise, I'd welcome being set
straight.

I've given verifiable examples of Major Motion Pictures and Broadcast
Network Level TV programs finished on FCP.

Anyone else who want to chime in with examples of similar work cut on
other software don't be shy.

The more we talk about this stuff the more we all learn.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 3:12:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <35tvu0F4pe4g7U1@individual.net>,
"Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Maybe the story titled "Using Vegas, Excalibur & SD-Connect to Edit the 2005
> Stellar Awards" at http://tinyurl.com/6a74a will show Mac users just how
> good Vegas really is.
>
> From the article:
> In this article, Creative Cow's Timothy Duncan explores how Northstar
> Studios used Sony Vegas, the Excalibur plug-in's multi-cam wizard for Vegas
> and Convergent Design's SD-Connect video converter to help create this
> year's 20th Annual Stellar Awards broadcast -- a ten camera shoot recorded
> January 15th in Houston, Texas.
> The 20th Annual Stellar Awards is in syndication and now airing nationwide
> around the country. Although this project was finished on an Avid|DS system,
> the offline was done using Sony Vegas and the Excalibur plug-in utilizing
> its Multi Camera Wizard.
>
> Special note here to all Mac users.
> Excalibur (the multi-cam tool) is only $99.00. MultiCam for FCP is $295.00.
> And Tim had all 11 camera angles on the timeline simultaneously.
> Excalibur can have up to a 25 camera multi-cam view.
> According to the MultiCam review at http://tinyurl.com/47cb3, FCP can only
> do 3 :-(
> Don't worry guys, you'll catch up some day :-)
>
> BTW, Timothy Duncan is the same guy who edited a 5-camera Sheryl Crow video
> in under an hour while on a flight from Chicago to L.A. in May of last year.
> Details of that story are at http://tinyurl.com/4ugsn
> Mac users should pay particular attention to Tim's comments in post #17.
>
>
> Mike

I just took a look at the story referenced above.

Particularly at the screen capture taken from the SDI feeds in the
SD-Connect ads linked from the story.

Is it just me or do ALL areas of the capture still look - well - iffy?

I'm seeing scads of interlace artifacts in EVERY area, including the
uncompressed stuff.

Am I reading this wrong?

Anyone else.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 4:30:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Chris Phillipo" <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c631010d713ff8c98a8f1@news.eastlink.ca...
> In article <newvideo-5A1CF8.22180526012005@news.west.cox.net>,
> newvideo@fastq.com says...
>> OK, but the QUESTION wasn't about doing golf channel commercials - it
>> was about people using it for NETWORK LEVEL programming and FEATURE FILM
>> Production.
>>
>
> Generally when I see that a movie was cut by a PC/Mac, I'm not impressed
> I'm just thinking the guy didn't have a budget to work with. Are we
> talking films that arn't in the "Indie" category here?


um...At least 90% of ALL films are cut on PC or Mac.







> --
> _________________________
> Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
> http://www.ramsays-online.com
January 29, 2005 11:32:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Pardon the interruption from an unwashed outsider, but isn't it
possible (if not even 'likely') that a wannabe-great product, be it
Vegas or Premiere - might be quite comparable in performance,
features, and reliability with an industry standard like Avid, and the
primary reason it's not being adopted has more to do with industry
acceptance, known vs. unknown, and learning curves? If that were so,
and individual looking for the right tool (and no interest in training
himself for a job using industry standard tools) would be wise to
ignore whatever the industry is using, no?

In thinking about these whiz-bang tools, I think one should keep in
mind that they're primarily database managers with useful GUI's. On
top that, they offer effects and filters, including the ability to
render them, hopefully coded well enough to offer real-time views.

Farther off topic, what's this about Vegas needing an add-in for
multiple cameras? Is it really limited to one track natively?
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 3:51:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"JT" <NgPoster@missing.org> wrote in message
news:7ocnv0ttm9gsmavsig3ed2h0d77a8ghou2@4ax.com...
<snip>
>
> Farther off topic, what's this about Vegas needing an add-in for
> multiple cameras? Is it really limited to one track natively?
>
Vegas can have many video tracks. I don't know what the upper
limit on tracks would be, but I'd imagine that your system would
turn to molassas long before you reached that limit.

The point of add-ins like Multicam or Excalibur is the added functionality
http://www.creativecow.net/show.php?page=articles/dunca...
these plug-ins can assist you in setting up multiple synched rolls on your
timeline,
and present all of the tracks on screen at the same time. Then you get to
play it
all down at once and select your shots in real-time much as you would in a
live
switched environment. you can also scrub and select exack cut points. Once
you get most of the shots the way you want them, the plug-in will assemble
the
whole thing into a track you can output. Excalibur allows up to 25 cameras
on
screen at the same time.

David
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 5:47:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <KgwKd.8670$8Z1.8304@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
gospam@yourself.com says...
>
> yes. but that's OT.
>
> Going back to your initial point. Which was that you implied there is some
> 'other' system that is used as a platform to cut. Which is erroneous since
> every editing platform that I know of that is NOT running on a SGI is
> running on a PC or a MAC. Perhaps you meant something else?. Or you did not
> know that the PC or MAC are THE platforms for even the highest end editing
> and finishing systems.
>
>
>
>

I'm still waiting for that list of top grossing movies from somebody
here.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 12:14:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Chris Phillipo" <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c657a1f9ce08b8b98a8f9@news.eastlink.ca...
> In article <KgwKd.8670$8Z1.8304@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> gospam@yourself.com says...
>>
>> yes. but that's OT.
>>
>> Going back to your initial point. Which was that you implied there is
>> some
>> 'other' system that is used as a platform to cut. Which is erroneous
>> since
>> every editing platform that I know of that is NOT running on a SGI is
>> running on a PC or a MAC. Perhaps you meant something else?. Or you did
>> not
>> know that the PC or MAC are THE platforms for even the highest end
>> editing
>> and finishing systems.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'm still waiting for that list of top grossing movies from somebody
> here.
> --


google is your friend. you'll be waiting a long time before anyone looks it
up for you.
> _________________________
> Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
> http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 4:55:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> I'm still waiting for that list of top grossing movies from somebody
> here.


You're not going to get it because there haven't been any. Vegas users
realize the limitations of their software and, instead of trying to break
into Hollywood, are making documentaries, commercials, infomercials and TV
shows, just to name a few. In other words, they're making money with it.

Mike
January 30, 2005 9:40:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Vegas isn't a film editor, it's only a DV
> editor. It doesn't even do HD as far as I know either.. I could be
> wrong here though.
>
> -Richard

Version 4 and up can do edit lists for film (w/o the effects naturally) And
4 can be set at a HD resolution, but naturally this can't be recorded to a
DV cam through a ieee port. The lastest build of 5 adds support for the new
HDvideo format .
January 30, 2005 9:49:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"terry" <reply2group@thanks.zzz> wrote in message
news:hS9Ld.221779$Xk.128712@pd7tw3no...
>
>
> >
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but Vegas isn't a film editor, it's only a DV
> > editor. It doesn't even do HD as far as I know either.. I could be
> > wrong here though.
> >
> > -Richard
>
> Version 4 and up can do edit lists for film (w/o the effects naturally)
And
> 4 can be set at a HD resolution, but naturally this can't be recorded to a
> DV cam through a ieee port. The lastest build of 5 adds support for the
new
> HDvideo format .

That's all well and good but I wouldn't want to be the editor or post
supervisor on a film trusting an edit list from anything other than Avid, or
perhaps Final Cut. Also, how does Vegas interface with Pro Tools? That's
also a critical part of the work flow.
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 9:49:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Aaron wrote:
> "terry" <reply2group@thanks.zzz> wrote in message
> news:hS9Ld.221779$Xk.128712@pd7tw3no...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Vegas isn't a film editor, it's only a
>>> DV editor. It doesn't even do HD as far as I know either.. I
>>> could be wrong here though.
>>>
>>> -Richard
>>
>> Version 4 and up can do edit lists for film (w/o the effects
>> naturally) And 4 can be set at a HD resolution, but naturally this
>> can't be recorded to a DV cam through a ieee port. The lastest
>> build of 5 adds support for the new HDvideo format .
>
> That's all well and good but I wouldn't want to be the editor or post
> supervisor on a film trusting an edit list from anything other than
> Avid, or perhaps Final Cut.


I guess you missed the article at http://tinyurl.com/6a74a that I mentioned
earlier in this thread. In it, the editor did his off-line in Vegas and his
on-line on his Avid DS. Doesn't sound like he had any issues with Vegas :-)


> Also, how does Vegas interface with Pro
> Tools? That's also a critical part of the work flow.


Vegas doesn't need to interface with Pro Tools. It does fine all by itself.
Read the Audio section of this same article. The editor prefers Vegas to
Pro Tools - and he's not alone. The Vegas forums have several users that
have dumped Pro Tools and are now using Vegas instead.


Mike
January 31, 2005 12:13:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:36501fF4srgfaU1@individual.net...
>
>
> Aaron wrote:
> > "terry" <reply2group@thanks.zzz> wrote in message
> > news:hS9Ld.221779$Xk.128712@pd7tw3no...
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Vegas isn't a film editor, it's only a
> >>> DV editor. It doesn't even do HD as far as I know either.. I
> >>> could be wrong here though.
> >>>
> >>> -Richard
> >>
> >> Version 4 and up can do edit lists for film (w/o the effects
> >> naturally) And 4 can be set at a HD resolution, but naturally this
> >> can't be recorded to a DV cam through a ieee port. The lastest
> >> build of 5 adds support for the new HDvideo format .
> >
> > That's all well and good but I wouldn't want to be the editor or post
> > supervisor on a film trusting an edit list from anything other than
> > Avid, or perhaps Final Cut.
>
>
> I guess you missed the article at http://tinyurl.com/6a74a that I
mentioned
> earlier in this thread. In it, the editor did his off-line in Vegas and
his
> on-line on his Avid DS. Doesn't sound like he had any issues with Vegas
:-)
>
>
> > Also, how does Vegas interface with Pro
> > Tools? That's also a critical part of the work flow.
>
>
> Vegas doesn't need to interface with Pro Tools. It does fine all by
itself.
> Read the Audio section of this same article. The editor prefers Vegas to
> Pro Tools - and he's not alone. The Vegas forums have several users that
> have dumped Pro Tools and are now using Vegas instead.
>
>
> Mike
>
I did read the article. That isn't a film project, where I believe this
thread began. Of course Vegas works. Of course it can do some things that
Pro Tools can do. I'm just saying no post supervisor is going to risk
cutting negative with a cut list from anything but Avid or, in some cases,
Final Cut. And ProTools can do things for sound that Vegas can't even
approach. Have you ever been involved in post on a multi-million dollar
feature?
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 12:13:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Aaron wrote:
> "Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:36501fF4srgfaU1@individual.net...
>>
>>
>> Aaron wrote:
>>> "terry" <reply2group@thanks.zzz> wrote in message
>>> news:hS9Ld.221779$Xk.128712@pd7tw3no...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Vegas isn't a film editor, it's only
>>>>> a DV editor. It doesn't even do HD as far as I know either.. I
>>>>> could be wrong here though.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Richard
>>>>
>>>> Version 4 and up can do edit lists for film (w/o the effects
>>>> naturally) And 4 can be set at a HD resolution, but naturally this
>>>> can't be recorded to a DV cam through a ieee port. The lastest
>>>> build of 5 adds support for the new HDvideo format .
>>>
>>> That's all well and good but I wouldn't want to be the editor or
>>> post supervisor on a film trusting an edit list from anything other
>>> than Avid, or perhaps Final Cut.
>>
>>
>> I guess you missed the article at http://tinyurl.com/6a74a that I
>> mentioned earlier in this thread. In it, the editor did his
>> off-line in Vegas and his on-line on his Avid DS. Doesn't sound
>> like he had any issues with Vegas :-)
>>
>>
>>> Also, how does Vegas interface with Pro
>>> Tools? That's also a critical part of the work flow.
>>
>>
>> Vegas doesn't need to interface with Pro Tools. It does fine all by
>> itself. Read the Audio section of this same article. The editor
>> prefers Vegas to Pro Tools - and he's not alone. The Vegas forums
>> have several users that have dumped Pro Tools and are now using
>> Vegas instead.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
> I did read the article. That isn't a film project, where I believe
> this thread began. Of course Vegas works. Of course it can do some
> things that Pro Tools can do. I'm just saying no post supervisor is
> going to risk cutting negative with a cut list from anything but Avid
> or, in some cases, Final Cut. And ProTools can do things for sound
> that Vegas can't even approach. Have you ever been involved in post
> on a multi-million dollar feature?


Let me first apologise for missing the word "film" in your reply. The lack
of film matchback is one thing that Vegas users have been clamoring for for
quite some time. For whatever reason, Sony (and formerly Sonic Foundry)
have chosen not to implement that feature. Users keep hoping though.
No, I haven't been involved in post to that extent. I work at the
corporate/industrial level where budgets are considerably smaller.
I'm not saying that Vegas is the be all to end all. As I said though,
several Pro Tools users have ditched it for Vegas, at least in the music
industry side of things.

Mike
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 6:31:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <7ocnv0ttm9gsmavsig3ed2h0d77a8ghou2@4ax.com>,
NgPoster@missing.org says...
> Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
>
> Pardon the interruption from an unwashed outsider, but isn't it
> possible (if not even 'likely') that a wannabe-great product, be it
> Vegas or Premiere - might be quite comparable in performance,
> features, and reliability with an industry standard like Avid, and the
> primary reason it's not being adopted has more to do with industry
> acceptance, known vs. unknown, and learning curves? If that were so,
> and individual looking for the right tool (and no interest in training
> himself for a job using industry standard tools) would be wise to
> ignore whatever the industry is using, no?
>
> In thinking about these whiz-bang tools, I think one should keep in
> mind that they're primarily database managers with useful GUI's. On
> top that, they offer effects and filters, including the ability to
> render them, hopefully coded well enough to offer real-time views.
>
> Farther off topic, what's this about Vegas needing an add-in for
> multiple cameras? Is it really limited to one track natively?
>
>

I wonder how easy it is to have consumer level products like that
interface with equipment that processes actual film. It probably ends
up being quite expensive be the end of it so you might as well buy time
on a purpose built system.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 6:33:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>
>
> google is your friend. you'll be waiting a long time before anyone looks it
> up for you.

One problem with that. No one cares enough to have made a record of
such things except FCP users and as we've seen here they are usually
incorrect.

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 6:36:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <364ot8F4t9f43U1@individual.net>, kujfam-
misleadingspam@sympatico.ca says...
> Subject: Re: Vegas Video & the Movie Industry
> From: "Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca>
> Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> >
> > I'm still waiting for that list of top grossing movies from somebody
> > here.
>
>
> You're not going to get it because there haven't been any. Vegas users
> realize the limitations of their software and, instead of trying to break
> into Hollywood, are making documentaries, commercials, infomercials and TV
> shows, just to name a few. In other words, they're making money with it.
>
> Mike
>
>

I would assume the same is true for FCP, and the main factor in choosing
a system for these people seems to be what they were taught to use in
film school.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 10:13:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Chris Phillipo" <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c6827e77bc2f4ff98a8ff@news.eastlink.ca...
>
>>
>>
>> google is your friend. you'll be waiting a long time before anyone looks
>> it
>> up for you.
>
> One problem with that. No one cares enough to have made a record of
> such things except FCP users and as we've seen here they are usually
> incorrect.


lol!

>
> --
> _________________________
> Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
> http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 10:13:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Chris Phillipo" <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c68289ec613721898a900@news.eastlink.ca...
> In article <364ot8F4t9f43U1@individual.net>, kujfam-
> misleadingspam@sympatico.ca says...
>> Subject: Re: Vegas Video & the Movie Industry
>> From: "Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca>
>> Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
>>
>> Chris Phillipo wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm still waiting for that list of top grossing movies from somebody
>> > here.
>>
>>
>> You're not going to get it because there haven't been any. Vegas users
>> realize the limitations of their software and, instead of trying to break
>> into Hollywood, are making documentaries, commercials, infomercials and
>> TV
>> shows, just to name a few. In other words, they're making money with it.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>
> I would assume the same is true for FCP, and the main factor in choosing
> a system for these people seems to be what they were taught to use in
> film school.
\

right again Chris. Hence the survival of the mac. That's the way Apple did
it in the 80's . They gave away thousands of macs to schools and
universities. Otherwise I doubt the mac would have survived.



> --
> _________________________
> Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
> http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 7:07:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"William Davis" <newvideo@fastq.com> wrote in message
news:newvideo-3B539B.01023401022005@news.west.cox.net...
>
>

> The entire above response boils down to the same thing as always.
>
> It implies some kind of extreme inside industry experience - It's all
> "we onlined this" and "I got a call" from some unnamed big shot or
> another. But there's NEVER anything verifiable.


Oh please Bill.. you sound jealous or something..

I clipped the rest of your response because it is about me. You're obsessed.
Relax.

You told us that the folks from the local power company like FCP. I told you
that my friends and associates don't like it. And I have given numerous
reasons why.. none of which you can accept for whatever personal reasons you
have.

You're going to have to live with it. ..try.. for ONCE to respond with some
concrete reason why instead of attacking me. It is so old now.... really
tired. And I am not offended.

And , Bill.. NO ONE really cares what people use to cut TV with. No one. Or
movies for that matter.. except groupies..

Like I said.. people cut on everything... makes no difference to me.. the
only thing I care about is what I am cutting with.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 7:43:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Chris Phillipo" <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c68276bc5a302d698a8fe@news.eastlink.ca...
> In article <7ocnv0ttm9gsmavsig3ed2h0d77a8ghou2@4ax.com>,
> NgPoster@missing.org says...
>> Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
>>
>> Pardon the interruption from an unwashed outsider, but isn't it
>> possible (if not even 'likely') that a wannabe-great product, be it
>> Vegas or Premiere - might be quite comparable in performance,
>> features, and reliability with an industry standard like Avid, and the
>> primary reason it's not being adopted has more to do with industry
>> acceptance, known vs. unknown, and learning curves? If that were so,
>> and individual looking for the right tool (and no interest in training
>> himself for a job using industry standard tools) would be wise to
>> ignore whatever the industry is using, no?
>>
>> In thinking about these whiz-bang tools, I think one should keep in
>> mind that they're primarily database managers with useful GUI's. On
>> top that, they offer effects and filters, including the ability to
>> render them, hopefully coded well enough to offer real-time views.
>>
>> Farther off topic, what's this about Vegas needing an add-in for
>> multiple cameras? Is it really limited to one track natively?
>>
>>
>
> I wonder how easy it is to have consumer level products like that
> interface with equipment that processes actual film. It probably ends
> up being quite expensive be the end of it so you might as well buy time
> on a purpose built system.
> --


The only real inteface between the editing system and the negative cutter is
a cut list. So anything that can generate a cut list, from a person with a
pencil to matchback software can handle the job. Of course you have to start
with edge code numbers when you edit or at least have them on screen from
the telecine. If it is on screen then you can generate this list by hand..
which makes any nle capable. Not that I would want to do it that way.






> _________________________
> Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
> http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 11:16:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 01:02:34 -0700, William Davis <newvideo@fastq.com>
wrote:

>It implies some kind of extreme inside industry experience - It's all
>"we onlined this" and "I got a call" from some unnamed big shot or
>another. But there's NEVER anything verifiable.

Call the guys who did "In The Cut" (on AVID btw). They initialy hailed
their FCP-system, but had soooooo many problems with it, then only
used it to cut commercials and later they ditched the thing all
together.

>But you aren't "discussing the program" at ALL. You're only discussing
>your OPINION of the program. We all know you hate it. And you're
>desperate to make everyone else hate it as well, for reasons that baffle
>me.

I hate it too. And I came to that conclusion without Nappy.

>I've tried and tried to figure out why you're so vitriolic about it, but
>the ONLY thing I can come up with is that you feel that by trashing it,
>you can come across as some kind of uniquely qualified sage that has the
>real "inside" scoop. But the problem is that like the vast majority of
>your posts, it's all opinon and rhetoric. Look at your own post above.

Have you actually any real-world experience with FCP? You only seem to
refer to the media-hype.

cheers

-martin-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 11:17:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:43:55 GMT, "nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote:

>> I wonder how easy it is to have consumer level products like that
>> interface with equipment that processes actual film. It probably ends
>> up being quite expensive be the end of it so you might as well buy time
>> on a purpose built system.
>
>The only real inteface between the editing system and the negative cutter is
>a cut list. So anything that can generate a cut list, from a person with a
>pencil to matchback software can handle the job.

Maybe he was more thinking along the lines of DI?

cheers

-martin-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 11:19:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:21:14 GMT, "nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote:

>Going back to your initial point. Which was that you implied there is some
>'other' system that is used as a platform to cut. Which is erroneous since
>every editing platform that I know of that is NOT running on a SGI is
>running on a PC or a MAC. Perhaps you meant something else?.

There's the Amiga, the Casablanca, the Moviola......

-m-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 11:20:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:33:06 GMT, Chris Phillipo
<cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote:

>One problem with that. No one cares enough to have made a record of
>such things except FCP users and as we've seen here they are usually
>incorrect.

I haven't got that much time to go to the cinema, but the last new
movies I saw, had always "AVID" at the end of the credits. Haven't
seen _one_ with FCP or Apple.

cheers

-martin-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 11:20:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> I haven't got that much time to go to the cinema, but the last new
> movies I saw, had always "AVID" at the end of the credits. Haven't
> seen _one_ with FCP or Apple.

Cold Mountain, edited by someone you should have heard of, three time
Academy Award winner Walter Murch. See here:
http://millimeter.com/digital_intermediate/video_final_...

That being said, I wholeheartedly agree with your contention that Avid is,
without a doubt, _the_ standard in the movie industry.

And while I almost never get into these "my s/w is better than yours"
threads because they are totally useless and everything that can be said has
already been said, I'll insert one comment in here certain to piss off Vegas
users:

If any other NLE s/w is going to penetrate the movie industry besides FCP,
it will be Premier Pro rather than Vegas. DirectX plugins and seamless
integration with AE and PS give it an insurmountable edge over Vegas.

But let's face it, that ain't going to happen either. Just like the computer
OS environment, Avid will remain the Windows XP of the movie industry, FCP
will be like, guess what... a Mac, Premier Pro is Windows 98 and Vegas is
Windows 95.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 11:25:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:36:17 GMT, Chris Phillipo
<cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote:

>I would assume the same is true for FCP, and the main factor in choosing
>a system for these people seems to be what they were taught to use in
>film school.

Depends on the filmschool ;-) The one where I used to work, most
people converted to Discreet Edit 5, after their struggles with FCP.
The only place where FCP had the edge was when it came down to
soundmixing. Mind you, the advanced functions of FCP were not used,
and the second year's did all these advanced functions like
compositing and grading on a Combustion-system, and this year also a
Quantel Editbox.
The ones who were so happy to cut their programs on FCP, because they
had previous experience with it, soon changed their opinion when they
saw the struggles in a simulated real-world environment.

cheers,

-martin-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 5:21:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:20:22 -0500, "Chuck U. Farley"
<chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote:

>Cold Mountain, edited by someone you should have heard of, three time
>Academy Award winner Walter Murch.

I know Murch (he's one of my heroes ;-) ), and am aware of him
cutting Cold Mountain on FCP, but just because he used FCP on that
movie and he is my hero, doesn't mean that I trust him on his opinion
on FCP ;-) I stick to my own experiences and from what I hear around
me too.

>That being said, I wholeheartedly agree with your contention that Avid is,
>without a doubt, _the_ standard in the movie industry.

It still is, and every new bit of software, which pretends to be
"pro", is measured against it.

>And while I almost never get into these "my s/w is better than yours"
>threads because they are totally useless and everything that can be said has
>already been said,

Yep. And most people are still unaware that you there is no perfect
software, but you have to find one suiteable to do the job you are
currently working on!

>If any other NLE s/w is going to penetrate the movie industry besides FCP,
>it will be Premier Pro rather than Vegas. DirectX plugins and seamless
>integration with AE and PS give it an insurmountable edge over Vegas.

Not too sure about that. After all, Sony has a bigger name in the
filmindustry than Adobe. I can see them pushing Vegas harder and more
succesfull than Adobe can.

>But let's face it, that ain't going to happen either. Just like the computer
>OS environment, Avid will remain the Windows XP of the movie industry, FCP
>will be like, guess what... a Mac, Premier Pro is Windows 98 and Vegas is
>Windows 95.

Yeah, and given the fact that AVID won't do a Xpress Pro v.5 for OSX,
FCP will "be" the Mac for a long time to go :) 

cheers

-martin-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 5:21:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I'll take a wild guess that Sony hasn't given Vegas matchback capability
for fear of possibly cannibalizing sales of its Xpri product. Saw a
demo of one about a year ago and it has improved quite a bit from its
original version. The Xpri guy claimed that Harpo Productions used a
few of them, right alongside Avid and linear online systems.

Give Sony another year or two and I'll bet you'll begin to see some
interesting developments for both Xpri and Vegas once the engineers
begin to "cross pollinate" those platforms.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 12:34:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Ragon" <bsema04@hananho.com> wrote in message
news:BjEJd.14987$wZ2.14527@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Vegas isn't a film editor, it's only a DV
> editor. It doesn't even do HD as far as I know either.. I could be wrong
> here though.
>
> -Richard
>

Film is usually edited in a low rez video format. So , yes.. you can edit
films in Vegas.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 12:34:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

nap wrote:
> "Richard Ragon" <bsema04@hananho.com> wrote in message
> news:BjEJd.14987$wZ2.14527@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Vegas isn't a film editor, it's only a
>> DV editor. It doesn't even do HD as far as I know either.. I could
>> be wrong here though.
>>
>> -Richard
>>
>
> Film is usually edited in a low rez video format. So , yes.. you can
> edit films in Vegas.


Nap, the problem is that there is currenntly no way to do do a negative
frame number matchback so unfortunately Vegas can't be used for this
purpose.

Mike
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 8:19:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

nap wrote:
>
> Bill.. we went over this ad naseum already. Who cares what Walter Murch
> uses? That's rediculous. Apple probably kissed his butt all the way through
> that.

Wow.. This truly shows that you are a vidiot.

It is well documented that Walter Murch pleaded with Apple to get
support from the Apple at the beginning of post production for Cold
Mountain. Apple turned down any support, because they feared that it
could backfire on them. Meaning that Walter had to relay on help from
Digital Film Tree.

Perhaps you should take a break from editing your latest wedding video,
and read some trade publications, or better yet, simple reframe from
things you know nothing about.

bill
!