|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 22nd, 2006, 08:50 PM | #1 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 49
|
Vegas 7 is commin.........
So Vegas 7 is coming out in September... Does anyone here think it will have HVX200 support? Or can confirm that it does? Anyone? Please? Lets hope...
|
August 22nd, 2006, 09:25 PM | #2 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,750
|
|
August 30th, 2006, 09:50 AM | #3 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 187
|
I hope they have fixed the slow motion flickering problem. That is the only problem i find with this software, and it is a very important one.
|
August 30th, 2006, 09:52 AM | #4 |
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
|
Slow Motion flickering problem? Is this a PAL-0nly issue?
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com |
August 30th, 2006, 09:53 AM | #5 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 187
|
I dont know, since i have no NTSC footage.
But everytime i make 50% slow motion from a 50i stream (on a 25p project), you get the flicker. |
August 30th, 2006, 09:59 AM | #6 |
Trustee
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brookline, MA
Posts: 1,447
|
Miguel likely means he wants a decent time remapper, like the one in After Effects.
I want keyframable effects, but who's listening? |
August 30th, 2006, 10:09 AM | #7 |
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
|
Now I'm a bit confused. Emre, Vegas has always had keyframeable FX. Maybe you want something different than what has been there for the past 6 years?
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com |
August 30th, 2006, 10:40 AM | #8 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 3,065
|
I just hope it's more stable or has better error reporting and definition when it comes to multiple drive rendering. The 'mystery' crashes are for the birds.
__________________
What happens if I push the 'Red' button? |
August 30th, 2006, 11:02 AM | #9 |
Trustee
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brookline, MA
Posts: 1,447
|
Err, slip of the tongue. I meant to say I hope Vegas will support real-time, keyframable sound effects.
|
September 1st, 2006, 09:35 AM | #10 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,420
|
HDV timecode from the camera through the edit just like DV. I'm still astounded that from the creation of the HDV spec through today the TC in Firewire transfer of footage is such a mess, with no (?) NLE or HD record software able to find camera TC.
And I've heard the lame excuses, from "there is no spec" to "there is no timecode" to "it's so hard to do", I have zero patience for any of them. The TC is there and it can be done if the manufacturers will devote coders to the task. In their ignorance, sw engineering managers are deciding that the tools we've used since the dark ages of video are just not needed anymore, and it pisses me off that my trusty Vegas and DVRack don't have the same functionality for HDV that they do for DV. |
September 1st, 2006, 09:52 AM | #11 |
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
|
Seth, while you might not buy the "excuses" as you call them, if it were easy, or even not-so-easy to provide, don't you think you'd be seeing it in ANY application?
We've looked into this for our own software or as a third-party gen tool, and it's just not that simple, not if frame-accurate is your goal. There might be some potential changes now that we're starting to see next-gen HDV tools from companies like Convergent Design, Miranda, etc. HDV does not transmit timecode via firewire, so there has to be a regen or other means of pulling the information without using the tape. It *is* part of the HDV spec, just no one is passing it. It's a hardware manufacturer issue, not a software issue, but it's a problem all the same.
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com |
September 1st, 2006, 08:52 PM | #12 |
Trustee
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 1,570
|
The new Sony decks seems to send TC down firewire as one feature is being able to clone a HDV tape with them, TC and all.
|
September 2nd, 2006, 11:50 AM | #13 | |
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
|
Quote:
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com |
|
September 2nd, 2006, 01:23 PM | #14 | ||
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,420
|
Spot, thanks for your response. I guess part of the attitude that's coming through in my post stems from the discussions I've had with tech support at a couple manufacturers. I do hate it that I seem to know more about HDV timecode than tech support - it seems that there are few in these companies who understand production workflow.
Granted, the men & women of Madison have done better than almost anyone in developing a tool in Vegas that lends itself to very efficient workflow, and I do want a tool that can go as fast as I can. I recently got 3 solid days of training on FCP, very interesting, and it does shine at some things. But Vegas supports good workflow in a way that FCP doesn't touch. What gets me is how we've been let down at every step of the way with HDV timecode, from the manufacturers developing the spec through the chain of camcorders, recorders, and post tools all the way to me. They have dropped the ball and dropped it hard, IMO. Here we have the so-called more professional HD version of the very popular DV format. I love it, I like the pictures, I'm ok with DI, faster hardware, etc., but how could they how could they have cooked this format with less timecode functionality than DV? If anything, HDV is more likely to be used in multi-camera or double-system sound production than DV, but a major synch tool used for decades in pro video and reasonably well supported in DV is just gone. Quote:
Frame accurate. Well, really, what would totally satisfy me is a starting timestamp in the file header, as in the BWF timecode spec. Just that would give me all I need to easly acheive rough sync, and Vegas' sample-level slip'n'slide is extraordinary for fine sync. Quote:
If so, my read is that software manufacturers have not been sufficiently motivated to write capture/transfer utilities that look for TC in the various places it has been put in the FW stream. That would be a time & money issue. But maybe your info is better and the hardware people eviscerated TC to keep prosumer gear out of professional workflows. It wouldn't be the first time. Regardless, the manufacturers who contributed to the spec also make software. If it isn't Sony Media Software, Sony Corp. certainly deserves criticism for helping to create this mess. Forgive my attitude, but it still pisses me off! |
||
September 2nd, 2006, 02:09 PM | #15 |
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
|
Sony, JVC, and Canon all deserve crap for not making this a priority, no doubt.
The firewire transmits T/C, but it's in a means that it's difficult to read, so it's not accurate of me to say it's not transmitted. But reading it frame accurately is very challenging, and without frame accuracy, what's the point? I do see your time-stamp point as a valid one, and it might well be there is an answer forthcoming. :-) IBC is just around the corner.
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com |
| ||||||
|
|