vegas vs premiere
- Thread starter xort
- Start date
Re: vegas vs premiere
Vegas is Windows only.
Vegas is Windows only.
skippyfetus
Carbonite Member
Re: vegas vs premiere
I've been using Premiere for years, just switched to Vegas and I already like it better even though I'm not really used to it.
I've been using Premiere for years, just switched to Vegas and I already like it better even though I'm not really used to it.
Fred_Plowman
Well-known member
Re: vegas vs premiere
VEGAS rocks.. but its only for conservatives.. j/k xort...lol
VEGAS rocks.. but its only for conservatives.. j/k xort...lol
Fred_Plowman
Well-known member
Re: vegas vs premiere
Vegas doesnt have a hardware accelrtor.. this is one thing that makes it revolutionary.. it uses our CPU to render.. my computer gets slow and i only do a minimal of tasks after starting to render..
Render times i have found depends upon the codec and the number of video tracks in the project.. a typical 1 hour video takes about 4 hours i think with Vegas..
Vegas doesnt have a hardware accelrtor.. this is one thing that makes it revolutionary.. it uses our CPU to render.. my computer gets slow and i only do a minimal of tasks after starting to render..
Render times i have found depends upon the codec and the number of video tracks in the project.. a typical 1 hour video takes about 4 hours i think with Vegas..
Re: vegas vs premiere
[quote author=Fred_Plowman link=board=Vegas;num=1089766760;start=0#5 date=07/14/04 at 12:13:13]Vegas doesnt have a hardware accelrtor.. this is one thing that makes it revolutionary.. it uses our CPU to render.. my computer gets slow and i only do a minimal of tasks after starting to render..
Render times i have found depends upon the codec and the number of video tracks in the project.. a typical 1 hour video takes about 4 hours i think with Vegas.. [/quote]
You call it revolutionary but then describe long, slow render times. Sounds like Premiere without the hardware accelerator.
I'm thinking of trying PrePro alone and wait to see if Canopus gets their act together with proper drivers.
[quote author=Fred_Plowman link=board=Vegas;num=1089766760;start=0#5 date=07/14/04 at 12:13:13]Vegas doesnt have a hardware accelrtor.. this is one thing that makes it revolutionary.. it uses our CPU to render.. my computer gets slow and i only do a minimal of tasks after starting to render..
Render times i have found depends upon the codec and the number of video tracks in the project.. a typical 1 hour video takes about 4 hours i think with Vegas.. [/quote]
You call it revolutionary but then describe long, slow render times. Sounds like Premiere without the hardware accelerator.
I'm thinking of trying PrePro alone and wait to see if Canopus gets their act together with proper drivers.
scharky
Veteran
Re: vegas vs premiere
I have actually found vegas to be much faster at rendering files than premiere ever was for me, however, I never invested in a hardware accelerator. The nice thing about the newest version of vegas is that you can network render, meaning that you can have as many computers as you have access to all rendering at the same time. Beat that hardware accelerator.
I have actually found vegas to be much faster at rendering files than premiere ever was for me, however, I never invested in a hardware accelerator. The nice thing about the newest version of vegas is that you can network render, meaning that you can have as many computers as you have access to all rendering at the same time. Beat that hardware accelerator.
Fred_Plowman
Well-known member
Re: vegas vs premiere
Good point Scharky.. yes netwrok render is a great new tool.. i still have vegas 4.0 though :-[
Oh well it still is great. I dont rmind long render times. it would be nice not to have long render times but.. this is typical in software based NLE's/
Someday they wll work around that maybe.. but until then.. i love my Vegas,
everyone who uses Vegas will proudly tell you. "I love my Vegas". Why dont these other editor users say.. "I love my Premier" "I love my AvID"??
Good point Scharky.. yes netwrok render is a great new tool.. i still have vegas 4.0 though :-[
Oh well it still is great. I dont rmind long render times. it would be nice not to have long render times but.. this is typical in software based NLE's/
Someday they wll work around that maybe.. but until then.. i love my Vegas,
everyone who uses Vegas will proudly tell you. "I love my Vegas". Why dont these other editor users say.. "I love my Premier" "I love my AvID"??
Re: vegas vs premiere
Who cares if the rendering time in Vegas is a little longer, when it takes 2 times longer to edit your piece in Premiere? I swear that Adobe tried to make the least user friendly piece of software that they could. I spent twice as long trying to learn Premiere as I did Vegas, and can only do half the stuff I can do in Vegas.
I have to train professors at my university how to use Premiere all the time, because they always buy that program just because Adobe makes it. Later, I have to make them buy Vegas and train them in that (which is much easier) because they can't figure Premiere out! :
Like Fred said, I love my Vegas!
Who cares if the rendering time in Vegas is a little longer, when it takes 2 times longer to edit your piece in Premiere? I swear that Adobe tried to make the least user friendly piece of software that they could. I spent twice as long trying to learn Premiere as I did Vegas, and can only do half the stuff I can do in Vegas.
I have to train professors at my university how to use Premiere all the time, because they always buy that program just because Adobe makes it. Later, I have to make them buy Vegas and train them in that (which is much easier) because they can't figure Premiere out! :
Like Fred said, I love my Vegas!
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: vegas vs premiere
I agree wholeheartedly. I came from a Premiere 6.0/Matrox RT2000 system, with real-time hardware acceleration, and was very loath to even look at Vegas because I couldn't stand the idea of going back to rendering everything.
Once I played with it, I was hooked.
Once I started using it for full-size projects, I could not imagine going back to Premiere even with the hardware accelerator. The Vegas workflow is simply so much faster than Premiere, and takes so many fewer clicks to get something done, that it more than makes up for the render at the end.
I do still despise that render. With the auto show I used to do, it was 28:30 and would require about an 80-minute render to put on the titles and graphic bugs and such. But the workflow was so very fast that in the end I didn't mind putting up with the final render.
I agree wholeheartedly. I came from a Premiere 6.0/Matrox RT2000 system, with real-time hardware acceleration, and was very loath to even look at Vegas because I couldn't stand the idea of going back to rendering everything.
Once I played with it, I was hooked.
Once I started using it for full-size projects, I could not imagine going back to Premiere even with the hardware accelerator. The Vegas workflow is simply so much faster than Premiere, and takes so many fewer clicks to get something done, that it more than makes up for the render at the end.
I do still despise that render. With the auto show I used to do, it was 28:30 and would require about an 80-minute render to put on the titles and graphic bugs and such. But the workflow was so very fast that in the end I didn't mind putting up with the final render.
Re: vegas vs premiere
I'm unclear as to how previewing and rendering work on Vegas. I don't mind the idea of a one time render at the end of a session. Not great but tollerable. But I want to see the effect of, lets say, a one second disolve vs. a half second disolve right away. With my Storm/premiere, I just drag the length of the disolve to either lengthen or shorten it and it's ready to play, no render. That's true with most of what I do. Color correction, titles, disolves, audio sweetening are all real time, full resolution. How is this different with Vegas?
Also, will Vegas support an NTSC video monitor? A must for color correction.
I'm unclear as to how previewing and rendering work on Vegas. I don't mind the idea of a one time render at the end of a session. Not great but tollerable. But I want to see the effect of, lets say, a one second disolve vs. a half second disolve right away. With my Storm/premiere, I just drag the length of the disolve to either lengthen or shorten it and it's ready to play, no render. That's true with most of what I do. Color correction, titles, disolves, audio sweetening are all real time, full resolution. How is this different with Vegas?
Also, will Vegas support an NTSC video monitor? A must for color correction.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: vegas vs premiere
That's the way Vegas works. Only difference is, the more complex the operation, the fewer frames it'll be able to keep up with. For most effects (dissolves, etc) you'll see it in full real time at full frame rate. If you put some very complex effects on there it might drop the preview rate down to 20, or 15, or 10 fps... if it gets REALLY complex then you could see it go all the way down to 4fps or 3fps, etc. It plays back as much as it can in pure real time, no rendering, and it drops frames if it can't keep up the pace.
Which situation can be improved upon by buying a faster computer.
And if you really need to see a certain effect at full frame rate, you can pre-render that section.
And yes, you can get previews out of an NTSC monitor, provided that you have a camera or deck hooked up to your firewire port. It previews in real time out the firewire port.
That's the way Vegas works. Only difference is, the more complex the operation, the fewer frames it'll be able to keep up with. For most effects (dissolves, etc) you'll see it in full real time at full frame rate. If you put some very complex effects on there it might drop the preview rate down to 20, or 15, or 10 fps... if it gets REALLY complex then you could see it go all the way down to 4fps or 3fps, etc. It plays back as much as it can in pure real time, no rendering, and it drops frames if it can't keep up the pace.
Which situation can be improved upon by buying a faster computer.
And if you really need to see a certain effect at full frame rate, you can pre-render that section.
And yes, you can get previews out of an NTSC monitor, provided that you have a camera or deck hooked up to your firewire port. It previews in real time out the firewire port.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: vegas vs premiere
It would run it okay, yes. Is that 1.8ghz an Intel P4? If so, you're pretty far behind the curve as far as raw processing power goes, what with there being 3.2ghz hyperthreaded PC's now, but you should get decent performance out of it as-is.
Of course, you can download a free trial version and try it out and see exactly how your system would perform with it.
It would run it okay, yes. Is that 1.8ghz an Intel P4? If so, you're pretty far behind the curve as far as raw processing power goes, what with there being 3.2ghz hyperthreaded PC's now, but you should get decent performance out of it as-is.
Of course, you can download a free trial version and try it out and see exactly how your system would perform with it.
Premiere Option in Vegas?
Premiere Option in Vegas?
My Premiere friend showed me the Scene feature, where you can set up numerous scenes, each with separate timelines, and edit these separately as part of a longform program.
Is there a simple way to do this in Vegas?
Thanks,
Brian
Premiere Option in Vegas?
My Premiere friend showed me the Scene feature, where you can set up numerous scenes, each with separate timelines, and edit these separately as part of a longform program.
Is there a simple way to do this in Vegas?
Thanks,
Brian
Michael_Capulli
Active member
Re: vegas vs premiere
To me, Premiere has a more classical editing workflow, but vegas's color correction and 5.1 mixing controls are worlds better. The best features being that you can scale the mixing and control windows to fullscreen if you want, for the most precise color correction and 5.1 mixing. Premiere's 5.1 mixing controls are pretty small, which doesnt leave much room for very specific panning.
Also, Premiere's MPEG encoder is a joke compared to the quality you will get out of Vegas. Even rendering a DV AVI in premiere - seems to be lacking in comparison.
To me, Premiere has a more classical editing workflow, but vegas's color correction and 5.1 mixing controls are worlds better. The best features being that you can scale the mixing and control windows to fullscreen if you want, for the most precise color correction and 5.1 mixing. Premiere's 5.1 mixing controls are pretty small, which doesnt leave much room for very specific panning.
Also, Premiere's MPEG encoder is a joke compared to the quality you will get out of Vegas. Even rendering a DV AVI in premiere - seems to be lacking in comparison.
ryanwaggoner
Member
Re: vegas vs premiere
This thread is a little old, but if I were you, I would head over to sony.com and download a trial of vegas. Nothing like getting your hands on it to see if it'll work for you...
Ryan
This thread is a little old, but if I were you, I would head over to sony.com and download a trial of vegas. Nothing like getting your hands on it to see if it'll work for you...
Ryan