V V4 Beta results? at DVinfo.net

Richard Alvarez · February 2nd, 2003, 02:52 PM

Just wondering how the VV4 beta testing is going. Anyone download and use it yet?

Rick Spilman · February 2nd, 2003, 03:47 PM

Downloaded it but too busy or lazy to install and play with it. Interesting review by Brian Standing though.

http://abcdv.com/article/articleview/64/1/52

Josh Bass · February 2nd, 2003, 08:23 PM

I have played with it a little. I really like the built in wave form monitor and vectorscope, and the advanced color correction tools. I remember SF's site said something about "using prerender files to render" or something like that. Maybe this means it won't have to rerender every time the wind blows?

Eric Reynolds · February 2nd, 2003, 08:40 PM

I have been using it and it sure seems to use more system resources. I am a huge Vegas fan, but there is not enough in 4 for me to want to upgrade.

Bill Ravens · February 3rd, 2003, 02:10 PM

I've been using V4 alot. The two biggest improvements are in the area of color correction/vectorscope, waveform analyzer and the addition of 5.1 surround sound ala Acid 4. There are a miriad of other "changes" which can be classified as slicker ways to do what vv3 already did. Well worth the upgrade, but, then, thats just MHO.

Jeff Chandler · February 3rd, 2003, 02:36 PM

I may be doing something wrong, but it takes way longer to render the same clips on my system than Premiere.

Bill Ravens · February 3rd, 2003, 04:22 PM

Quality doesn't come for free. Premiere uses the Micro$oft codec, whereas Vv3/v4 uses the SoFo codec. The M$ DV codec is garbage and I wouldn't use it if it were free. So, since I'm not in a newsroom, time costs me very little for the higher quality.

Edward Troxel · February 3rd, 2003, 04:30 PM

Yes, I've downloaded it and played with it some. Here are my reasons for upgrading:

1) Much better color correction tools.
2) Better rippling
3) Includes the "add-on" package for Vegas 3 (effects & transitions)
4) Faster scrubbing (up to 20x)
5) Smart resampling (no more need to set the switch when changing speeds)
6) Smarter at keeping track of pre-renders
7) Scripting capabilities to add MANY new features to the program.
8) Interesting editing methods such as "shuffle"
9) 5.1 encoding
10) Built-in scopes
11) Master Video/Audio tracks to keyframe things that were previously not keyframable.

Shall we continue??? I see a LOT of reasons to upgrade.

Eric Richmond · February 3rd, 2003, 05:46 PM

IMO, the upgrade makes sense depending on how much you use Vegas professionally.

If Video stuff is just a hobby for you, there might not be enough to upgrade, if you're looking to use it professionally, it's a must upgrade

just my .02

Eric Reynolds · February 3rd, 2003, 06:23 PM

I take back my saying I would not upgrade. I would and will, but not till my computer can handle it.

Josh Bass · February 3rd, 2003, 10:30 PM

I know it's still not available, but does anyone know what the prices will be for those going from 3 to 4? Or is it still a secret?

Jay Gladwell · February 4th, 2003, 06:55 AM

I agree with Bill and Ed whole-heartedly. I've downloaded and used V4.0 since I got the e-mail notice from SoFo. I bought 3.0 when it was first introduced and have had no regrets. After looking at several other NLEs, except for FCP, I was ready to buy Avid DVExpress. My only complaint about VV3.0 was the lack of a robust color correction system. I sent them an e-mail stating such. Now, that's not to say they did that for me or because I sent them an e-mail suggesting it. But it's obvious that enough people did. What I'm saying is they appear to be serious when it comes to listening to their customers.

I'm confident that VV can stand up against any other product out there. Oddly enough, I think the upgrade to 4.0 is similar to the upgrade from the XL-1 to the XL1-s. On the surface, it may appear to be somewhat superficial. However, for those of us who have used both extensively, we have learned that that simply isn't true.

As someone else said, if you're into video as a hobby, stay with 3.0. If your a serious video producer (as income) it will be, again, a steal for the cost of an upgrade!

Just my opinion!

Jeff Chandler · February 4th, 2003, 08:25 AM

I guess I should have explained that I use the Storm so I'm not using the Microdoft codec, but rather the Canopus. I did compare clips that were rendered, though, and VV took a lot longer. I also have Avid XDV and FCP, and both rendered faster thatn VV4, at least in my test. Time for me is critical, so speed matters for me.

Rick Spilman · February 4th, 2003, 11:58 AM

Jeff,

I agree you about render times. Premiere renders only what needs to be rendered whereas it appears that VV renders the entire timeline. Maybe I have VV set-up wrong but the rendering does seem awfully slow.

Overall I like the software. It is much more stable than Premiere was on my machine but I have to figure out how to manage the render times. I am still using my Rex RT for color correction and some filters just to avoid the VV render times .

Rick

Eric Reynolds · February 4th, 2003, 12:02 PM

What the guy on the other forum said is true... that's not really a *Great* deal... not for an upgrade. I could sell my copy of vv3 and then pay less for the full install of vv4.

"A new Sonic Foundry flyer in the SNAIL MAIL today! Upgrade from Vegas 1, 2, or 3 to Vegas 4: $199.95
Video Factory to Vegas 4: $399.95"

February 2nd, 2003, 02:52 PM	#1
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	V V4 Beta results? Just wondering how the VV4 beta testing is going. Anyone download and use it yet?

February 2nd, 2003, 08:23 PM	#3
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	I have played with it a little. I really like the built in wave form monitor and vectorscope, and the advanced color correction tools. I remember SF's site said something about "using prerender files to render" or something like that. Maybe this means it won't have to rerender every time the wind blows? __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

February 3rd, 2003, 02:36 PM	#6
Jeff Chandler Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Mesa, Az. Posts: 167	I may be doing something wrong, but it takes way longer to render the same clips on my system than Premiere. __________________ Jeff Chandler

February 3rd, 2003, 10:30 PM	#11
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	I know it's still not available, but does anyone know what the prices will be for those going from 3 to 4? Or is it still a secret? __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

February 4th, 2003, 08:25 AM	#13
Jeff Chandler Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Mesa, Az. Posts: 167	I guess I should have explained that I use the Storm so I'm not using the Microdoft codec, but rather the Canopus. I did compare clips that were rendered, though, and VV took a lot longer. I also have Avid XDV and FCP, and both rendered faster thatn VV4, at least in my test. Time for me is critical, so speed matters for me. __________________ Jeff Chandler

February 2nd, 2003, 03:47 PM	#2
Rick Spilman Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Jersey City, NJ Posts: 366	Downloaded it but too busy or lazy to install and play with it. Interesting review by Brian Standing though. http://abcdv.com/article/articleview/64/1/52

February 2nd, 2003, 08:40 PM	#4
Eric Reynolds New Boot Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Springfield MO Posts: 24	I have been using it and it sure seems to use more system resources. I am a huge Vegas fan, but there is not enough in 4 for me to want to upgrade.

February 3rd, 2003, 02:10 PM	#5
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	I've been using V4 alot. The two biggest improvements are in the area of color correction/vectorscope, waveform analyzer and the addition of 5.1 surround sound ala Acid 4. There are a miriad of other "changes" which can be classified as slicker ways to do what vv3 already did. Well worth the upgrade, but, then, thats just MHO.

February 3rd, 2003, 04:22 PM	#7
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Quality doesn't come for free. Premiere uses the Micro$oft codec, whereas Vv3/v4 uses the SoFo codec. The M$ DV codec is garbage and I wouldn't use it if it were free. So, since I'm not in a newsroom, time costs me very little for the higher quality.

February 3rd, 2003, 04:30 PM	#8
Edward Troxel Sponsor: JET DV Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern Illinois Posts: 7,953	Yes, I've downloaded it and played with it some. Here are my reasons for upgrading: 1) Much better color correction tools. 2) Better rippling 3) Includes the "add-on" package for Vegas 3 (effects & transitions) 4) Faster scrubbing (up to 20x) 5) Smart resampling (no more need to set the switch when changing speeds) 6) Smarter at keeping track of pre-renders 7) Scripting capabilities to add MANY new features to the program. 8) Interesting editing methods such as "shuffle" 9) 5.1 encoding 10) Built-in scopes 11) Master Video/Audio tracks to keyframe things that were previously not keyframable. Shall we continue??? I see a LOT of reasons to upgrade.

February 3rd, 2003, 05:46 PM	#9
Eric Richmond Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Boston, Mass Posts: 42	IMO, the upgrade makes sense depending on how much you use Vegas professionally. If Video stuff is just a hobby for you, there might not be enough to upgrade, if you're looking to use it professionally, it's a must upgrade just my .02

February 3rd, 2003, 06:23 PM	#10
Eric Reynolds New Boot Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Springfield MO Posts: 24	I take back my saying I would not upgrade. I would and will, but not till my computer can handle it.

February 4th, 2003, 06:55 AM	#12
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	I agree with Bill and Ed whole-heartedly. I've downloaded and used V4.0 since I got the e-mail notice from SoFo. I bought 3.0 when it was first introduced and have had no regrets. After looking at several other NLEs, except for FCP, I was ready to buy Avid DVExpress. My only complaint about VV3.0 was the lack of a robust color correction system. I sent them an e-mail stating such. Now, that's not to say they did that for me or because I sent them an e-mail suggesting it. But it's obvious that enough people did. What I'm saying is they appear to be serious when it comes to listening to their customers. I'm confident that VV can stand up against any other product out there. Oddly enough, I think the upgrade to 4.0 is similar to the upgrade from the XL-1 to the XL1-s. On the surface, it may appear to be somewhat superficial. However, for those of us who have used both extensively, we have learned that that simply isn't true. As someone else said, if you're into video as a hobby, stay with 3.0. If your a serious video producer (as income) it will be, again, a steal for the cost of an upgrade! Just my opinion!

February 4th, 2003, 11:58 AM	#14
Rick Spilman Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Jersey City, NJ Posts: 366	Jeff, I agree you about render times. Premiere renders only what needs to be rendered whereas it appears that VV renders the entire timeline. Maybe I have VV set-up wrong but the rendering does seem awfully slow. Overall I like the software. It is much more stable than Premiere was on my machine but I have to figure out how to manage the render times. I am still using my Rex RT for color correction and some filters just to avoid the VV render times . Rick

February 4th, 2003, 12:02 PM	#15
Eric Reynolds New Boot Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Springfield MO Posts: 24	What the guy on the other forum said is true... that's not really a Great deal... not for an upgrade. I could sell my copy of vv3 and then pay less for the full install of vv4. "A new Sonic Foundry flyer in the SNAIL MAIL today! Upgrade from Vegas 1, 2, or 3 to Vegas 4: $199.95 Video Factory to Vegas 4: $399.95"