Yes, you save the $ 184.0 if policy is the same as was in this upgrade. It says any Vegas Pro version..

Does anyone know if Vegas 9.0 will support the native files from the JVC GY-HM100 (either .mov or .mp4) too now? My understanding is that the mp4´s are the same the EX1 produces which would lead to the assumption that I would be ok with the JVC - but does anyone really know?

IT depends on what you need Vegas to Do. For me, I am still in SD land. So all these fancy new HD features are mostly useless for me.

However, if you are still a Vegas 7 user and not at 8 yet, then I would suggest an upgrade if for only one feature.... window layouts. I love being able to switch my window layout to one of 910 customizable setups so I can instantly go from my "ore-edit" workflow tof organizing tracks on the timeline, to my Color correction work flow where I see the scopes & preview in a different window so that they are placed next to my broadcast monitor. etc. That feature alone is very very handy.

As far as I'm concerned, considering it has taken Sony well over 12 months to come up with an upgrade from version 8 to 9 the 'enhancements' appear to be quite minimal.

However, though I wouldn't have considered version 8 an unstable version, I think it left something to be desired in this area and if 9 proves to be more stable along with some added speed benefits, It's probably a worthwhile upgrade.

I just would have really liked to seen them move away from the lame old Video for Windows playback issues and onto something a little more sophisticated.

Jon

Why do you want to pay for major upgrades several times a year? Adobe has an 18 month upgrade cycle on major releases.

Hmm, I'm not sure in my prior post I said anything about *wanting* to pay for more frequent updates. My point was simple. Considering it has been MORE than the 'usual' 12 months or so between releases, Sony hasn't appeared to made too many enhancements or changes.

Another way of saying this is.... Since it took longer than usual to come out with a release, why didn't Sony pump out more features and/or enhancements?

Jon

Sony does a pretty good job of adding free updates to its products as the technology changes. Doing that costs money in between new versions. I can imagine some bean counter somewhere saying, "Dudes you need to get a new version out as we are starting to lose money on the old version." I am frankly thankful that they are providing what is to me a very stable product with timely in between updates at, compared to Adobe pricing, a fair price.

I completely agree with this post. I'd just like to see a few areas of the product stepped up a bit feature/performance wise to stand up a little bit better side-by-side with FCP, however SCS has a very good reputation, overall, and the product the provide for the price they sell it for is very much a fair value offering and probably the absolute most bang for the buck.

Jon

Worth the upgrade?
 

I work primarily with DV PAL video mastered to either DV PAL itself or to MP4 for web use and use Vegas 7.0e for all my editing and post. Should I be making an upgrade to Vegas 9 at all?

By the way, are Sony seriously promoting the darker color palette as a *new feature* on Vegas Pro 9?

Good point Ali. Changing the screen color is hardly a feature. What's more, it show what lame upgrade this really is. I get the feeling that Sony puts very little money or staff into Vegas. This program seems to be treated as a stepchild.

Too bad, because in many ways it is the best NLE out there. If I were Sony, I'd put more attention into converting Premiere and Final Cut users. I'd also work harder to capture first-time editors. Finally, porting a Mac version would also help change Vegas' place in the industry.

Paul, I would submit that you are incorrect. While there may be new features you don't need, that doesn't mean plenty of time and money wasn't put into this upgrade. Things to consider:

better handling of large (gigapixel) images
Max of 2kx2k upped to 4kx4k
New 32-bit processing mode
Lots of new workflow enhancements
Ability to read Red files natively

etc...

Ed, I certainly respect your opinion and consider you a major asset to the industry, but IMO, a new version needs to offer more than this does. This seems like it would qualify to be Vegas 8.5, but certainly not 9. The fact that Sony is touting "a darker color palette" as a feature lens evidence to the fact that this upgrade is lacking in substance for all but a few.

I'm curious to hear how it trails FCP in terms of performance. I am relatively new to Final Cut but so far my experience has been very disappointing, to say the least. It has been so slow that I find that I cannot use it for any of my revenue generating endeavors. On the same hardware (I've benchmarked it on my 2.33GHz macbook pro and a quad core "Hack" Pro), I find vegas 8.0c to absolutely obliterate Final Cut (Express) in terms of speed. And as far as features go, I guess Final Cut Studio offers Color, which has some advanced color correction tools that Vegas may not be able to match, but for pure editing of audio and video from what I've seen Vegas offers features that greatly speed up the process, plus, you can edit almost everything in realtime on the timeline in vegas - the rendering in Final Cut is a real bummer.

I'm looking forward to the new features in 9.0, but lord help us, don't use Adobe as the yardstick. Adobe sells a lot of software, of course, most of it to one-trick-pony Apple users who have little other choice, from where it then bleeds into the Windows market. Nice product leverage if you can get it. Certainly, Microsoft notices - check out their lame attempt at a CS4 product with Microsoft Studio Expression.

Basically, Adobe is famous for pushing powerful programs with lousy user interfaces on a captive market segment - the better to get them acclimated to a non-intuitive system that once learned becomes a ball-and-chain.

This stick-in-the-mud-phenomenon is well known - you have people who still think emacs is the greatest text editor since sliced bread even though an equally exeprienced person using a integrated development environment will out produce them.

Microsoft on the other hand is famous for pushing marginal programs with glitzy interfaces - you can figure them out intuitively as you realize their limitedness.

Two different business models.

But we're talking SCS here. You're getting an extremely powerful product, and with the benefit of a well thought-out intuitive user interface too. That's not an easy task - and if more than anything the raison de etre of Vegas. If SCS wants to allow you to optionally display in a flat gray to appeal to some FCP folks, fine, but it's a freebie feature of no significance. Don't make Vegas into an Adobe. Sell Vegas into the Apple platform if you will, but don't change its nature to make it work like Adobe - otherwise you might as well just give up the business and hand it over to them.

I think Vegas's issues are related to the fact that were a little behind in coming to market, coming from a small private company. I think Sony saw the innovation going on in Madison and decided they'd go with something that had a vision of both power and elegance for the casual to semipro and light professional markets. I think they're doing a great job.

Good afternoon,

I came from Ppr and adobe suite (1.5) and I find Vegas a much more useful program for me, solvong problems i could not in adobe.

I hope Vegas stays unique and on the same path.

I orderred my update and look forward to the additions. the price is hardly more,if at all, than an evening out on the town!!