Premiere Pro CS6 vs. Sony Vegas Pro 12

[dreamsound2]

Hi,

Since I took my first video class in College, I noticed beginners using Vegas getting very good results. More than the rest of us using FCP and Premiere. Mainly, from using color correction, effects, moving titles, etc. It seems this is a very user-friendly software without having to outsource to software like After Effects. I'm more on the intermediate side. I feel comfortable with the workflow of Premiere but not AE.

Now, I am to a point where I want to do those things with Adobe Premiere (color correction, moving titles, fx) but I feel very limited with the options given. I am running an Intel i5 2012 iMac with 16gb RAM. I've been able to do audio engineering running multiple samples and plugins at the same time with dozens of tracks and no issues. Also the multi cam works flawlesly but as soon as I put a color correction plug-in the system gets extremely slow.

I've read that Adobe strains the system a lot more than Vegas, including slower rendering times. But you know there are so many opinions out there that is really hard to get a concrete opinion. You guys so far have been the most reliable source so far :thumbsup:

Switching to Vegas means switching back to a PC (maybe this time witha a really nice video card for a change), so before I make the change I'd like to get as much info as possible. Especially before I install any more software for Mac. Too bad I can't do a trial.

For those of you who have tried both Premiere and Vegas please chime in on the pros and cons. Thank you!!

 

[drapeama]

I feel comfortable with the workflow of Premiere but not AE.
I've been able to do audio engineering running multiple samples and plugins at the same time with dozens of tracks and no issues.
Switching to Vegas means switching back to a PC (maybe this time witha a really nice video card for a change)
For those of you who have tried both Premiere and Vegas please chime in on the pros and cons.

1) Both are pretty "close" to each other. Not much intuitive, but quite powerful. What I do, personally, is color correct and "match" the videos in AE, then edit in Vegas as I find Vegas to be more intuitive than Premiere...and easier also.
2) In Vegas I've been able to edit a lot of audio stuff in my last short film. But I must admit that since I've tried the version 12 recently, it's not as stable as it was. The GPU helps a lot the previews, but make sure you have an aggressive graphic card installed! My workaround with it was to use intermediate files, Mpeg2 encoded at 100Mbps and it was fine. With HDV there's no problems but with DSLR .movs, it's a bit harder to work with. Other than that, Vegas is a very intuitive and powerfull editor.
3) That's a big decision, if you're used to work on a Mac, then think about it twice! I never worked on a Mac before and I'm pretty happy with a PC. Try on a PC before switching, to see how you like it, or not!
4) For me, Vegas is more intuitive and easy. Premiere seems to be harder to work, I don't fully understand how fast it is supposed to be! To each his own though. I prefer Vegas. The Audio mixer in it worth the price! Here's a recent still of my Vegas workflow:

 

[dreamsound2]

1) Both are pretty "close" to each other. Not much intuitive, but quite powerful. What I do, personally, is color correct and "match" the videos in AE, then edit in Vegas as I find Vegas to be more intuitive than Premiere...and easier also.

I love your workflow! I use Cubase for audio editing which is killer.. very stable. I think color correcting before importing the clips is a really good idea but do you have to color correct and render each clip individually or is there a work-around in after effects? Maybe render all the clips at the same time? I know rendering alone is a lot different than Premiere from what I've seen.

 

[drapeama]

I love your workflow! I[..] Maybe render all the clips at the same time?

1) Thanks! So far it suits my needs perfectly!
2) One video per comp in After Effects. Color correct each video (each comp) then add them all to "Queue" and hit render. They'll render one by one, one after the other during the night. Go to sleep. Wake up and get ready to edit!

 

[Exact]

I've read that Adobe strains the system a lot more than Vegas, including slower rendering times.

It's a long time since I looked at Vegas, so I can't comment on how vegas works.

However, We did some CPU load testing only yesterday on Premiere Pro vs FCPX. We use both regularly and since the last couple of updates FCPX has become serious enough to actually use and the colour correction is streets ahead of anything in Premiere Pro. However, I digress.

We tested playing DSLR footage on both. Premiere Pro CPU load was 282%. FCPX CPU load, 24% (yes twenty four).

We tested playing MPEG2 50mbit 4:2:2. Premiere Pro CPU load was 196%. FCPX CPU load was 22%.

We tested playing AVCHD. Premiere Pro CPU load was 162%, FCPX CPU load was 22%.

We added some colour correction to the DSLR footage. Premiere Pro CPU load 542%. FCP CPU load..... 26% !!!

Adobe claimed this wonderful advance with the Mercury Playback Engine but seriously, they need to go back and optimise it some more!!! BTW - we tested this on NVidia CUDA enabled cards, with GPU acceleration on Premiere Pro enabled, so it 'should' have been in Premiere Pro's favour.

Go figure....

Also, we tested exporting of a 49 minute ProRes 422 sequence (with colour correction) from an UN-RENDERED sequence. Premiere Pro 3hrs 19mins, FCPX 14 mins (fourteen!).

So, if Vegas is giving you the kind of performance that FCPX is giving then I can see why so many people love it over Premiere Pro. Adobe's strength is in the cross application integration. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you haven't tried FCPX and given it at least a couple of weeks, actually learned how to use it properly (rather than open it, dabble a little and put it down again) and produce a couple of projects start to finish, you have no idea how much time it 'can' save you. Lots of people are saying it's not professional, but they really don't know what they are talking about.

We use both Premiere Pro and FCPX side by side at the moment, but the day is fast approaching where we will pick one over the other.....

FCPX's biggest weakness is AUDIO. As per the post above, audio is a very important part and something I hope Apple address.

The audio mixer in Premiere Pro is streets ahead. If vegas is even better than that would be seriously tempting too.

 

[drapeama]

So, if Vegas is giving you the kind of performance that FCPX is giving then I can see why so many people love it over Premiere Pro.
FCPX's biggest weakness is AUDIO.
The audio mixer in Premiere Pro is streets ahead. If vegas is even better than that would be seriously tempting too.

1) I wouldn't say it's "as good as that" but from what I've tested, it's certainly better than Premiere.
2) That's one of the strength in Vegas: it was (at first) an audio editor:

Originally developed as an audio editor, it eventually developed into an NLE for video and audio from version 2.0.

it features a very powerful audio mixer that has a nice surround panning capability. Actually, some people says only good about ProTools, then I would personally say the same. Judging by the pictures I've attached before, with some VST plugins, it's a very complete audio solution, already integrated to a NLE software. I usually do all the video & audio editing directly in Vegas. Color correction is done in After Effects because I've learned to use it from VideoCopilot.net. Both completes each other rather well.
3) I don't know how good or bad it would compare to another software, but what I can say is that it's quite complete and can handle easily the Surround Sound for a short/feature film.

 

[Shooter]

I think color correcting before importing the clips is a really good idea but do you have to color correct and render each clip individually or is there a work-around in after effects?

Why do you think this is a "really good idea"?

It means loading every clip you shot into its own comp in After Effects.
Previewing rushes non real time and comp by comp
CC an Grading clips in an application that does not play realtime
Viewing / evaluating your clips isolated and not in any coherent sequence. ( Scene to Scene) and out of context of the story!
Applying grading fx and "windows", vignettes, layers etc... to a bunch of material that wont make the cut.
Managing a bunch of stuff that wont make the cut.eg. Naming protocols, Time code issues!
Rendering a ton of footage in a render queue... that wont make the cut.
Duplicating your footage and creating massive files and considerable storage issues.
Losing a generation....

Probability of round trip back to AEFX to apply additional CC and FX before conforming ( losing yet another generation )


I dont get it. rogar-Thinking(DBG

 

[drapeama]

It means loading every clip you shot into its own comp in After Effects.
Previewing rushes non real time and comp by comp
CC an Grading clips in an application that does not play realtime
Viewing / evaluating your clips isolated and not in any coherent sequence. ( Scene to Scene) and out of context of the story!
Applying grading fx and "windows", vignettes, layers etc... to a bunch of material that wont make the cut.
[..]
Rendering a ton of footage in a render queue... that wont make the cut.
Duplicating your footage and creating massive files and considerable storage issues.
Losing a generation....

1) Yes, that's the point. I use (and that's only me) After Effects because I learned it, I know how to use it and it suits my needs. You can do color correction, adjusting the ratio (working with 2.40:1 in 16:9 comp) and adding some VFX to clips, all at the same time before rendering to lossless codecs.
2) If you're not editing at that point, what's the matter of having real time?
3) What does it change? Colors will remains the same, real-time or not!
4) If you know where you're going (storyboard and all) you know what look scenes will have. I give you the point that if you're working for someone else in a project, this simply doesn't make sens. But I talk for myself, and I do pretty much all aspect of editing and color correcting, so I know where I'm going.
5) I'd say you need organization for sure. Otherwise, as you said, you'll work and render clips that won't make the final cut.
6) Again, if you're organized, you'll render what you need only. What I do (usually for short films) is that I edit a "rough" cut of the short, then I know what clip I need to work on. Then I load them in After Effects, work on them and render in a separate folder. When comes the time to edit the final cut, I simply replace the clips in Vegas and I work with the "final result" directly, as I know what look I intended.
7) Well, 1TB HDD is less than 100$. If you're getting paid, that's no big deal. But always depending on what project you're working on. I do that for short films which doesn't requires more than 50GB total, including final renders.
8) Losing a generation...does it still applies to Lossless encoded videos?

Not to sound arrogant at all Shooter, but for what I personally need, that workflow suits my needs quite well. Do I recommend it to someone else, try and decide. I like it, and I'm ok with all the pros and cons. To each his own. I'm simply not able to do any color correction in Vegas, even if it has some tools to do it built-in.

 

[Golden]

Just to add my thoughts, based on Vegas 11/12 and Sony's rude/lack of customer support I shall never buy another Sony product.

Thanks to Adobe's new creative clown scheme I shall not be renting anything from them.

Looks like Avid or Edius may be coming my way next.

 

[mmka1985]

From what I gather from the Dreamsound2's original post, he either should learn After Effects to expand his workflow or consider looking at Autodesk Smoke for the more in depth post production needs like titles, compositing and such. Adobe's strength lies in cross application integration. If you want an NLE to do the work of a motion graphics and compositing app i.e. After Effects, you will only get so far. Not to say Vegas isn't a bad program or anything as I have never used it but almost anyway you slice it for your needs will require another application. If you want to do some heavy end color grading, you can always look into DaVinci Resolve Lite and experiment with that. My two cents is explore all options and test before making a big decision. I wouldn't change my platform based on one applications performance. I would need much more than that.