PC Magazine says Vegas is Slow

Stuart Kupinsky · April 29th, 2003, 10:46 AM

Jan, how great of you to chime in. Do you have plans to review Pinnacle Edition 4.5/5 also? That would be a third likely comparison.

Jan Ozer · April 29th, 2003, 10:53 AM

I will be reviewing Edition for EMedia if not PC Magazine. Once Premiere comes out, I'll update all the performance numbers for all programs.

This should all occur over the next three months. Essentially starting over lets us adjust test parameters, so if there are defects or omissions that you folks point out, we can address them then.

Gosh, are you a fallen lawyer? Me too.

Jan

Stuart Kupinsky · April 29th, 2003, 11:40 AM

Actually I'm the General Counsel of a multi-billion dollar global manufacturing company. But that's just my day job -- I hope to trade up to working or retiring to the video/film world some day, which is my real joy. Of course until that happens I'll stick to income-producing jobs ;-)

I think what would be helpful would be a performance review across the three NLEs on the same PC processing the same files, etc. -- similar to what you've already done. You might want to post your intended approach and let the Board folks chime in on any problems they see (there's lots of expertise around here). Functionality is obviously a different matter (e.g., advanced background and GPU processing on Edition 5 v. Vegas' superior audio features; Edition's virtually impenatrable user interface v. Vegas' intuitiveness).

I don't know that many folks actually choose between Premiere (more of an introductory NLE product) and Vegas, which has higher end features and complexity. (Probably also why your review sparked such a strong reaction to Vegas fans.) That's why I think the comparison to Edition 5 is important.

Jan Ozer · April 29th, 2003, 11:59 AM

oops. Income is definitely good.

I agree that Vegas has vastly superior tools than Premiere, which will be clear in the Emedia review which is 2000 words. Tough to be effusive in 400 words for PC Magazine.

I'm under NDA with Adobe on the next version of Premiere, so I can't go into details. But Premiere 7 could be very relevant to the Vegas market.

I'm was thinking about using the procedure described above unless someone tells me how and why it's incomplete, biased or otherwise flawed.

Jan

Peter Jefferson · April 29th, 2003, 12:31 PM

hmm...
main concept mpg plugin isnt a bad one, but i do find it has the tendency to leave afew artifacts, particualrly combing, but thats besides the point of this thread...

Main concept is a third party plugin which works.. yet is is slow and when running multiple tracks it WILL bog down...
u can speed it up by resetting the Priority within task amanger, but that defeats the purpose of multi tasking your machine...
Another way to speed it up is to run a Dynamic Ram Preview prior to rendering, this will fill ur ram and give you a bit of a headstart.

In this case, RAM is the all important fact, probably more so than your HDD config.

besides the slow mpg conversion, if you intend on creating edits within Vegas, then porting across thru to DVD Architect, i would actualy recommend using AVI.. then allowing DVD A to convert the mpg for you.
Forget rendering to mpg unless u really need to... who wants to work in a lossey format anyway?

AVI rendering is MUCH faster in vegas....

On a side, note, i actualy prefer finishing my video then allowing it to render overnight.. the environmental conditions are ideal and there no chance in the machine overheating

One thing to note, if u use 2 HDD, make sure u have Vegas installed on your main partition, THEN in another partition have your Vegas temp files, then on the Physically Seperated drive save your finished render..
sounds tedious, but both drives are running at optimal speeds as your temp files are being accessed on one drive while they render within the other..

to tell you the truth, i dont care if it is slow, IMO this is THE best SW editor on the market....
the integration with other Sonic Foundry Apps (sound forge comes to mnd) puts this app in another league... and the inlusion of 5.1 as well as DX plugins (and VST plugs if u have an adapter)

Sure Premiere has its Avid (pardon the pun) followers, but in the end, the only thing keeping Premiere alive right now is the HW and 3rd party support.
There hasnt really been anything innovative about it for a couple of years now...

If only Sonic Foundry bought out some HW support for it..... then it would REALLY wipe the floor with everything else...

I been using Vegas since it first came out, when it was originally designed for music videos.
Back then it was good, now its even better...

Edward Troxel · April 29th, 2003, 12:32 PM

Jan, could you post the actual VEG file somewhere so we could look at it? Media is not necessary. It might help us determine if there was an incorrect setting.

Jan Ozer · April 29th, 2003, 12:51 PM

Edward:

Both publications frown on doing this.

Going forward, however, when I look at both Edition and Premiere, I will post the results, probably in general terms (not specific times but relative), and the veg file for review.

In the meantime, has anyone done any testing that would shed some light on whether my results are accurate? I understand most folks don't have both applications, but I'm sure some do.

Jan

Edward Troxel · April 29th, 2003, 01:02 PM

Jan, you could try reading here:

http://www.sonicfoundry.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=177815&Replies=11&Page=1

The only reason for the request of the VEG file is that there are some very simple things that people (often accidentally) do that can slow down rendering. For example: track "level" sliders not at 100%, resample on when not needed, rendering at BEST vs. GOOD (good is as good as best in MANY cases), unneeded or misused envelopes, etc.... They are just easier to find by looking directly at the VEG file.

If you would like someone to look over the veg file without it being posted on the web, you can find my e-mail through the newsletters at www.jetdv.com/tts.

Jan Ozer · April 29th, 2003, 01:12 PM

Thanks, but I'm going to decline for reasons previously stated, and work with you and other interested folks proactively.

Keep in mind that in order to be objective, we can't produce at less than full quality for some editors and full quality for others. For example, with Premiere, I used high quality resampling, though perhaps Adobe would say that wasn't necessary.

Jan

Edward Troxel · April 29th, 2003, 01:45 PM

"Keep in mind that in order to be objective, we can't produce at less than full quality for some editors and full quality for others. "

Definitely would never ask that. However, full quality does not necessarily mean rendering at "BEST". "GOOD" is still full quality and is the mode in which a weekly airing TV show I have been editing is rendered.

Here's the official difference:
"Good" uses bi-linear scaling. (Best compromise between speed and quality. This method will produce good results in most cases).

"Best" uses bi-cubic/Integration scaling. (Best image resizing algorithm available in Vegas. Quality differences will be most noticable when using very large stills or stretching small sources)

If you are using high-resolution stills that are being scaled down to video, use Best and not Good to prevent flicker causing aliasing.

April 29th, 2003, 10:46 AM	#16
Stuart Kupinsky Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Princeton, NJ Posts: 82	Jan, how great of you to chime in. Do you have plans to review Pinnacle Edition 4.5/5 also? That would be a third likely comparison. __________________ DVX100A/AT4071a/Vegas/After Effects Dual 2GHz Xeon PC

April 29th, 2003, 10:53 AM	#17
Jan Ozer New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Galax, VA Posts: 5	Future Plans I will be reviewing Edition for EMedia if not PC Magazine. Once Premiere comes out, I'll update all the performance numbers for all programs. This should all occur over the next three months. Essentially starting over lets us adjust test parameters, so if there are defects or omissions that you folks point out, we can address them then. Gosh, are you a fallen lawyer? Me too. Jan __________________ Jan Ozer

April 29th, 2003, 11:40 AM	#18
Stuart Kupinsky Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Princeton, NJ Posts: 82	Actually I'm the General Counsel of a multi-billion dollar global manufacturing company. But that's just my day job -- I hope to trade up to working or retiring to the video/film world some day, which is my real joy. Of course until that happens I'll stick to income-producing jobs ;-) I think what would be helpful would be a performance review across the three NLEs on the same PC processing the same files, etc. -- similar to what you've already done. You might want to post your intended approach and let the Board folks chime in on any problems they see (there's lots of expertise around here). Functionality is obviously a different matter (e.g., advanced background and GPU processing on Edition 5 v. Vegas' superior audio features; Edition's virtually impenatrable user interface v. Vegas' intuitiveness). I don't know that many folks actually choose between Premiere (more of an introductory NLE product) and Vegas, which has higher end features and complexity. (Probably also why your review sparked such a strong reaction to Vegas fans.) That's why I think the comparison to Edition 5 is important. __________________ DVX100A/AT4071a/Vegas/After Effects Dual 2GHz Xeon PC

April 29th, 2003, 11:59 AM	#19
Jan Ozer New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Galax, VA Posts: 5	oops. Income is definitely good. I agree that Vegas has vastly superior tools than Premiere, which will be clear in the Emedia review which is 2000 words. Tough to be effusive in 400 words for PC Magazine. I'm under NDA with Adobe on the next version of Premiere, so I can't go into details. But Premiere 7 could be very relevant to the Vegas market. I'm was thinking about using the procedure described above unless someone tells me how and why it's incomplete, biased or otherwise flawed. Jan __________________ Jan Ozer

April 29th, 2003, 12:51 PM	#22
Jan Ozer New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Galax, VA Posts: 5	Edward: Both publications frown on doing this. Going forward, however, when I look at both Edition and Premiere, I will post the results, probably in general terms (not specific times but relative), and the veg file for review. In the meantime, has anyone done any testing that would shed some light on whether my results are accurate? I understand most folks don't have both applications, but I'm sure some do. Jan __________________ Jan Ozer

April 29th, 2003, 12:31 PM	#20
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	hmm... main concept mpg plugin isnt a bad one, but i do find it has the tendency to leave afew artifacts, particualrly combing, but thats besides the point of this thread... Main concept is a third party plugin which works.. yet is is slow and when running multiple tracks it WILL bog down... u can speed it up by resetting the Priority within task amanger, but that defeats the purpose of multi tasking your machine... Another way to speed it up is to run a Dynamic Ram Preview prior to rendering, this will fill ur ram and give you a bit of a headstart. In this case, RAM is the all important fact, probably more so than your HDD config. besides the slow mpg conversion, if you intend on creating edits within Vegas, then porting across thru to DVD Architect, i would actualy recommend using AVI.. then allowing DVD A to convert the mpg for you. Forget rendering to mpg unless u really need to... who wants to work in a lossey format anyway? AVI rendering is MUCH faster in vegas.... On a side, note, i actualy prefer finishing my video then allowing it to render overnight.. the environmental conditions are ideal and there no chance in the machine overheating One thing to note, if u use 2 HDD, make sure u have Vegas installed on your main partition, THEN in another partition have your Vegas temp files, then on the Physically Seperated drive save your finished render.. sounds tedious, but both drives are running at optimal speeds as your temp files are being accessed on one drive while they render within the other.. to tell you the truth, i dont care if it is slow, IMO this is THE best SW editor on the market.... the integration with other Sonic Foundry Apps (sound forge comes to mnd) puts this app in another league... and the inlusion of 5.1 as well as DX plugins (and VST plugs if u have an adapter) Sure Premiere has its Avid (pardon the pun) followers, but in the end, the only thing keeping Premiere alive right now is the HW and 3rd party support. There hasnt really been anything innovative about it for a couple of years now... If only Sonic Foundry bought out some HW support for it..... then it would REALLY wipe the floor with everything else... I been using Vegas since it first came out, when it was originally designed for music videos. Back then it was good, now its even better...

April 29th, 2003, 12:32 PM	#21
Edward Troxel Sponsor: JET DV Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern Illinois Posts: 7,953	Jan, could you post the actual VEG file somewhere so we could look at it? Media is not necessary. It might help us determine if there was an incorrect setting.

April 29th, 2003, 01:02 PM	#23
Edward Troxel Sponsor: JET DV Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern Illinois Posts: 7,953	Jan, you could try reading here: http://www.sonicfoundry.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=177815&Replies=11&Page=1 The only reason for the request of the VEG file is that there are some very simple things that people (often accidentally) do that can slow down rendering. For example: track "level" sliders not at 100%, resample on when not needed, rendering at BEST vs. GOOD (good is as good as best in MANY cases), unneeded or misused envelopes, etc.... They are just easier to find by looking directly at the VEG file. If you would like someone to look over the veg file without it being posted on the web, you can find my e-mail through the newsletters at www.jetdv.com/tts.

April 29th, 2003, 01:12 PM	#24
Jan Ozer New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Galax, VA Posts: 5	Thanks, but I'm going to decline for reasons previously stated, and work with you and other interested folks proactively. Keep in mind that in order to be objective, we can't produce at less than full quality for some editors and full quality for others. For example, with Premiere, I used high quality resampling, though perhaps Adobe would say that wasn't necessary. Jan __________________ Jan Ozer

April 29th, 2003, 01:45 PM	#25
Edward Troxel Sponsor: JET DV Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern Illinois Posts: 7,953	"Keep in mind that in order to be objective, we can't produce at less than full quality for some editors and full quality for others. " Definitely would never ask that. However, full quality does not necessarily mean rendering at "BEST". "GOOD" is still full quality and is the mode in which a weekly airing TV show I have been editing is rendered. Here's the official difference: "Good" uses bi-linear scaling. (Best compromise between speed and quality. This method will produce good results in most cases). "Best" uses bi-cubic/Integration scaling. (Best image resizing algorithm available in Vegas. Quality differences will be most noticable when using very large stills or stretching small sources) If you are using high-resolution stills that are being scaled down to video, use Best and not Good to prevent flicker causing aliasing.