Will you switch
- Thread starter Gopher_Greene
- Start date
I keep waiting for the voice of reason to jump in and ask why Panasonic is forcing vendors to pay for THEIR R&D?
The reason, and the ONLY reason from what I understand (remember I can't speak for Sony) that Vegas doesn't have support for this format, is the ungodly cost of the codec and SDK, plus Sony's own expenses that come along with the codec implementation. So....just for giggles...
Say there are 5000 HVX cams out there, and of those 5000, maybe 10% use Vegas, and maybe another 10% or so will jump whatever platform they're currently on for Vegas. So, that means *maybe* another 500 copies of Vegas might get sold at a value of say (street price) 400.00. That's 200K. That cost *might* but not likely, could barely cover the cost of implementing the codec. Remember, Panasonic is charging an arm and a leg for the codec and accompanying SDK. Then Sony has to implement the codec and all it's warts and glories. That means "How will the codec manage supersampling on half frames, how will it blend with Quicktime, what happens when you mix mp3, aif, wma audio at differing frame rates with it, how does it manage cuts on quarter frames, etc?" It's no where near as simple as so many make it out to be, and couple complex dev with ridiculous costs from the codec vendor...how can anyone make a sound justification when there are only ridiculous statements about the number of cameras pre-ordered? In other words, if you don't have a reasonable idea of how many cameras are going to be out there, how can you make a projection on your ROI?
Put pressure on Panasonic too, because they're the ones making it difficult for the Vegas team to move ahead on dev.
For those that think it's a Sony/Panasonic thing....that's simply asinine.
The Broadcast team has to buy copies of Vegas from a distributor to package with the M10u just like any other reseller does. Media Software just wants to sell software. They don't give a damn about what camera people are using, unless it helps them sell software.
My next question is...because Panasonic competes with Sony...is Sony getting the same price for the codec as Apple and Canopus paid? Or is Panasonic deliberately trying to keep Sony from easily obtaining the codec?
If there are conspiracy theories being tossed around on the "why" Vegas isn't currently supporting/announcing for the HVX, then consider that it might not be Sony Media Software keeping this from happening. It's in someone else' best interests that users not be looking at the Sony name.
(Is that devil's advocate or what?:evil: )
The reason, and the ONLY reason from what I understand (remember I can't speak for Sony) that Vegas doesn't have support for this format, is the ungodly cost of the codec and SDK, plus Sony's own expenses that come along with the codec implementation. So....just for giggles...
Say there are 5000 HVX cams out there, and of those 5000, maybe 10% use Vegas, and maybe another 10% or so will jump whatever platform they're currently on for Vegas. So, that means *maybe* another 500 copies of Vegas might get sold at a value of say (street price) 400.00. That's 200K. That cost *might* but not likely, could barely cover the cost of implementing the codec. Remember, Panasonic is charging an arm and a leg for the codec and accompanying SDK. Then Sony has to implement the codec and all it's warts and glories. That means "How will the codec manage supersampling on half frames, how will it blend with Quicktime, what happens when you mix mp3, aif, wma audio at differing frame rates with it, how does it manage cuts on quarter frames, etc?" It's no where near as simple as so many make it out to be, and couple complex dev with ridiculous costs from the codec vendor...how can anyone make a sound justification when there are only ridiculous statements about the number of cameras pre-ordered? In other words, if you don't have a reasonable idea of how many cameras are going to be out there, how can you make a projection on your ROI?
Put pressure on Panasonic too, because they're the ones making it difficult for the Vegas team to move ahead on dev.
For those that think it's a Sony/Panasonic thing....that's simply asinine.
The Broadcast team has to buy copies of Vegas from a distributor to package with the M10u just like any other reseller does. Media Software just wants to sell software. They don't give a damn about what camera people are using, unless it helps them sell software.
My next question is...because Panasonic competes with Sony...is Sony getting the same price for the codec as Apple and Canopus paid? Or is Panasonic deliberately trying to keep Sony from easily obtaining the codec?
If there are conspiracy theories being tossed around on the "why" Vegas isn't currently supporting/announcing for the HVX, then consider that it might not be Sony Media Software keeping this from happening. It's in someone else' best interests that users not be looking at the Sony name.
(Is that devil's advocate or what?:evil: )
Pesie
Well-known member
Hi DSE,
Thank you for giving another perspective. Two things come into mind after re-reading your story:
1. You suggest that Panasonic could make it harder for Sony to obtain the codecs for the DVCPROHD protocol. I can't imagine that's in the interest of Panasonic, as Panasonic knows about the successful combi of the DVX100 and Vegas. And the current DVX100 users are a potential customer-group for upgrading to the HVX200. But having to switch pc-hardware and/or NLE-software could make some of them hesitate and postpone their buying decision. That would not be good for Panasonic. A big sales coverage in the early stages of it's release will give a boost to futere sales.
Or do you have some inside information you've based your suggestion on?
2. Suppose all software developing companies pay the same for obtaining the codec from Panasonic, they all have the ROI issue. Canopus, Avid, Apple/FCP, Adobe, etc. So the ROI subject counts for all of them. I can imagine implementing DVCPROHD into Vegas isn't easy, I agree upon that. But it's also a strategy of Sony Mediasoftware to get a bigger coverage in the professional NLE market. You can see that from their upgrade path from versions 3 up to 6. Vegas is gaining more market so far as I can judge, so supporting DVCPROHD would fit into that strategy, no matter what the ROI is. I know all about business calculations (it's my normal daytime job) and sometimes a company invests for other reasons than a short term profit.
BTW, I might upgrad to the HVX200 in two years or so, not sure about that. But if I have to leave Vegas behind because it wouldn't support the camera, that would be a hard decision. Vegas and DVD-A have a very central place in my filmmaking and I truly hope that the software keeps up with the DVCPRO technology. And I'm sure I'm not the only person thinking that way....
X-Mas greetings,
Thank you for giving another perspective. Two things come into mind after re-reading your story:
1. You suggest that Panasonic could make it harder for Sony to obtain the codecs for the DVCPROHD protocol. I can't imagine that's in the interest of Panasonic, as Panasonic knows about the successful combi of the DVX100 and Vegas. And the current DVX100 users are a potential customer-group for upgrading to the HVX200. But having to switch pc-hardware and/or NLE-software could make some of them hesitate and postpone their buying decision. That would not be good for Panasonic. A big sales coverage in the early stages of it's release will give a boost to futere sales.
Or do you have some inside information you've based your suggestion on?
2. Suppose all software developing companies pay the same for obtaining the codec from Panasonic, they all have the ROI issue. Canopus, Avid, Apple/FCP, Adobe, etc. So the ROI subject counts for all of them. I can imagine implementing DVCPROHD into Vegas isn't easy, I agree upon that. But it's also a strategy of Sony Mediasoftware to get a bigger coverage in the professional NLE market. You can see that from their upgrade path from versions 3 up to 6. Vegas is gaining more market so far as I can judge, so supporting DVCPROHD would fit into that strategy, no matter what the ROI is. I know all about business calculations (it's my normal daytime job) and sometimes a company invests for other reasons than a short term profit.
BTW, I might upgrad to the HVX200 in two years or so, not sure about that. But if I have to leave Vegas behind because it wouldn't support the camera, that would be a hard decision. Vegas and DVD-A have a very central place in my filmmaking and I truly hope that the software keeps up with the DVCPRO technology. And I'm sure I'm not the only person thinking that way....
X-Mas greetings,
Peter, my response is mostly due to the hysteria that has risen on this and other forums (more other fora) that have suggested that because Panasonic is a competitor to Sony, that Sony wouldn't want the codec. To every coin is two sides. If Sony wouldn't be interested in providing support for Panasonic, the converse would be that Panasonic wouldn't be interested in providing support or access to Sony. I wouldn't comment at all if I were privy to inside information on this particular subject, although I do have a pretty good idea of what has taken place and what might well be taking place.
It's a lot more in Sony's interest to support the Panasonic than it is for Panasonic to allow Sony easy access, anyone can easily figure that one out. Folks spend a LOT more time in front of their NLE than they do their camera, if they're shooter/editors. Sony is the ONLY NLE company at this time that also offers cameras. Once Grass Valley completes their ownership of Canopus, that'll be different too, but Grass Valley is already far, far, down the road of J2K, so who knows what their Panny support will be in the future. But Sony's NLE on the other hand, has always been known to be open and supportive, not to mention a very strong userbase in the US and other parts of the world.
It's a lot more in Sony's interest to support the Panasonic than it is for Panasonic to allow Sony easy access, anyone can easily figure that one out. Folks spend a LOT more time in front of their NLE than they do their camera, if they're shooter/editors. Sony is the ONLY NLE company at this time that also offers cameras. Once Grass Valley completes their ownership of Canopus, that'll be different too, but Grass Valley is already far, far, down the road of J2K, so who knows what their Panny support will be in the future. But Sony's NLE on the other hand, has always been known to be open and supportive, not to mention a very strong userbase in the US and other parts of the world.
You make a lot of sense, Spot, breaking down the numbers. We'll have to see how the sales of the HVX go, of course.
However, I think it's an overstatement to say that Panasonic would want to keep the codec from Sony, a competitor -- because Panasonic doesn't produce an NLE and it doesn't compete in that market. Vegas is produced by Sony, but Vegas isn't going to entice anyone to move to a Sony camera just because it's produced by Sony, so I don't see that there's a danger to Panasonic. There's more of a danger that too few NLEs can support the HVX. After all, the DVX probably would not have sold in the numbers it did if there was little 24p support to be had. I think it would be more in Panasonic's interest to provide the codec cheaply than it would be in Sony's to implement it, especially following the numbers you cite.
Anyway, I agree that the hysteria is getting out of hand at times, and I've been content to wait and see for some time now. The chips will fall where they fall.
However, I think it's an overstatement to say that Panasonic would want to keep the codec from Sony, a competitor -- because Panasonic doesn't produce an NLE and it doesn't compete in that market. Vegas is produced by Sony, but Vegas isn't going to entice anyone to move to a Sony camera just because it's produced by Sony, so I don't see that there's a danger to Panasonic. There's more of a danger that too few NLEs can support the HVX. After all, the DVX probably would not have sold in the numbers it did if there was little 24p support to be had. I think it would be more in Panasonic's interest to provide the codec cheaply than it would be in Sony's to implement it, especially following the numbers you cite.
Anyway, I agree that the hysteria is getting out of hand at times, and I've been content to wait and see for some time now. The chips will fall where they fall.
Whilst I agree, David, it's just as much an overstatement to say Sony won't implement the codec because Panasonic is a competitor in the camera market. In fact, it's MORE of an overstatement to say that, but that's what many Panasonic fans have been saying, in this thread and in other fora.
I hope that Panasonic and Sony will be able to see their mutual advantage, then. :beer:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, it all comes down to this: regardless of who's charging who for what, all of Vegas's significant competition is offering support, something that Vegas isn't.
FCP offers it. Avid offers it. And even Canopus offers it, and what's funny is that Canopus is about 1/10 (or is it 1/100) the size of the market that Vegas is for NLE's, yet they found the ROI worthwhile. Even Liquid offers MXF and DVCPRO50 support! Premiere Pro's the only major-market-share NLE other than Vegas that hasn't announced definitive plans.
Regarding the "competition" angle: Sony has something to lose if they implement support. Panasonic has nothing to lose if Sony implements support. Follow the money and you'll find a more likely explanation. If Sony implements support, that empowers users to buy the Panasonic product vs. trying to keep them in the Sony family. Panasonic faces no such conundrum because they don't offer an NLE, it is in their best favor to have all NLE's support it. If Panasonic was producing their own NLE, I'd say you had a good point. But because they don't, that argument doesn't work.
As far as development costs etc., one could presume that the costs are equivalent to each vendor, but even if they aren't: they could always reverse-engineer it. That's what Spec-Comm is doing with the CinePorter. I contacted several people about getting a custom DVCPRO-HD codec written. It's not that hard. I say that as a retired-from-the-business computer programmer -- it's a very hard task, yes, but it's not that hard, because the codec is primarily a derivative of the DVCPRO50 codec, which is itself a derivative of the DV codec. It's not like writing a new codec from scratch; there is an open-source DV codec that you could use to get a huge head start on the whole process. Not to mention that Sony Vegas has already written their own custom DV codec, which is also one of the best in the business.
And furthermore, like I've said before, the codec isn't the part we need most. In fact, that's arguably the least important aspect. The most important aspect is native Op-Atom .MXF support. Without that, there's no going forward. Vegas made a conscious decision to support only the Sony proprietary ("like.no.other") implementation of MXF, and specifically excluded any other type of MXF implementation. Until they rectify that, Vegas cannot be a viable option. And Op-Atom MXF is not a Panasonic-only thing, as Thomson uses Op-Atom MXF in their Infinity, and Ikegami uses Op-Atom in their Editcam, and it's the native file format Avid uses. Pinnacle Liquid uses it. It is THE new file exchange format.
If Vegas would at least implement Op-Atom (which is a codified SMPTE standard and is something that they wouldn't have to pay a dime in royalties to ANYONE), then that would get us about 90% of the way there. We can buy a codec from MainConcept if it comes to that.
Regarding the estimate of 5,000 HVX's: I would expect that number to be reached in the first full month of sales, worldwide, due to the backorder situation. There should be easily 3 to 5 times that many by NAB. Easily. As far as "new customers," how many new customers did they get because of their DVX support? Probably a lot. And how many of those will they lose because of lack of HVX support? Probably a lot. Jarred's already bought a Mac and moved over. I'm on the fence, and (without an announcement to the contrary) will probably go over to the Canopus camp. How many more will move over? How will the loss of revenues due to lack of upgrades to "Vegas 7" factor into their ROI?
The other companies have all found a way to make it work. Even Canopus (which, by the way, isn't "little" anymore; they've now got a billion-dollar parent company!) So surely our Wisconsin friends can find a way to make HVX support work in the same fully-integrated, better-than-anyone-else way that they've historically done. And surely they'll see the good reasons there are to do so.
FCP offers it. Avid offers it. And even Canopus offers it, and what's funny is that Canopus is about 1/10 (or is it 1/100) the size of the market that Vegas is for NLE's, yet they found the ROI worthwhile. Even Liquid offers MXF and DVCPRO50 support! Premiere Pro's the only major-market-share NLE other than Vegas that hasn't announced definitive plans.
Regarding the "competition" angle: Sony has something to lose if they implement support. Panasonic has nothing to lose if Sony implements support. Follow the money and you'll find a more likely explanation. If Sony implements support, that empowers users to buy the Panasonic product vs. trying to keep them in the Sony family. Panasonic faces no such conundrum because they don't offer an NLE, it is in their best favor to have all NLE's support it. If Panasonic was producing their own NLE, I'd say you had a good point. But because they don't, that argument doesn't work.
As far as development costs etc., one could presume that the costs are equivalent to each vendor, but even if they aren't: they could always reverse-engineer it. That's what Spec-Comm is doing with the CinePorter. I contacted several people about getting a custom DVCPRO-HD codec written. It's not that hard. I say that as a retired-from-the-business computer programmer -- it's a very hard task, yes, but it's not that hard, because the codec is primarily a derivative of the DVCPRO50 codec, which is itself a derivative of the DV codec. It's not like writing a new codec from scratch; there is an open-source DV codec that you could use to get a huge head start on the whole process. Not to mention that Sony Vegas has already written their own custom DV codec, which is also one of the best in the business.
And furthermore, like I've said before, the codec isn't the part we need most. In fact, that's arguably the least important aspect. The most important aspect is native Op-Atom .MXF support. Without that, there's no going forward. Vegas made a conscious decision to support only the Sony proprietary ("like.no.other") implementation of MXF, and specifically excluded any other type of MXF implementation. Until they rectify that, Vegas cannot be a viable option. And Op-Atom MXF is not a Panasonic-only thing, as Thomson uses Op-Atom MXF in their Infinity, and Ikegami uses Op-Atom in their Editcam, and it's the native file format Avid uses. Pinnacle Liquid uses it. It is THE new file exchange format.
If Vegas would at least implement Op-Atom (which is a codified SMPTE standard and is something that they wouldn't have to pay a dime in royalties to ANYONE), then that would get us about 90% of the way there. We can buy a codec from MainConcept if it comes to that.
Regarding the estimate of 5,000 HVX's: I would expect that number to be reached in the first full month of sales, worldwide, due to the backorder situation. There should be easily 3 to 5 times that many by NAB. Easily. As far as "new customers," how many new customers did they get because of their DVX support? Probably a lot. And how many of those will they lose because of lack of HVX support? Probably a lot. Jarred's already bought a Mac and moved over. I'm on the fence, and (without an announcement to the contrary) will probably go over to the Canopus camp. How many more will move over? How will the loss of revenues due to lack of upgrades to "Vegas 7" factor into their ROI?
The other companies have all found a way to make it work. Even Canopus (which, by the way, isn't "little" anymore; they've now got a billion-dollar parent company!) So surely our Wisconsin friends can find a way to make HVX support work in the same fully-integrated, better-than-anyone-else way that they've historically done. And surely they'll see the good reasons there are to do so.
Norm Sanders
Script Wrangler
Barry_Green said:
Unless I'm wrong, Jarred dumped the Mac and in fact was trying to sell it ... or at least that's what he told me. The learning curve was STEEP, and he didn't feel all the Mac/FCP stuff gel'd together as well as everyone was claiming with DVD Authoring, etc. Yes, he gave it a go, mostly from all the FCP hype, but hated every second of it.
Barry, why would you choose Canopus over Avid? I don't know either NLE, but assume that Avid's more well known.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Jarred did dump the Mac. Then when we went to L.A. and saw the cheap little 2-year-old PowerBook working with HVX footage the way that it was, he went out and bought ANOTHER Mac.
You'll have to ask him for details.
The reason to go Canopus instead of Avid was that I saw a demo presentation from both, and just liked the Canopus integration better. Canopus offered a more Vegas-like experience. I think the Apple integration was dynamite too, but I can't see spending big bucks on the Mac because, frankly, if Vegas comes out at NAB with a fully-integrated Vegas 7 that supports HVX footage the way it's supposed to be supported, I'll jump back on that faster than a fat guy jumping on a ham at Christmas dinner. So I don't really want to spend the bucks for the Mac hardware if I'm just going to end up on the PC again; especially in this transitionary period of Mac-moving-to-Intel.
If Vegas doesn't add support by NAB, then that would be the time to revisit the Mac situation. Hopefully by that time they'll have their Intel thing sorted out and then it can be evaluated more fully. So Canopus looks to be a promising stopgap, which may or may not become a full-time replacement. If Vegas does the right things, I'll go back to it, unless Canopus blows it away and from reading the Canopus forums, I don't think that's gonna happen.
For someone who hires themselves out as an editor, I'd definitely recommend Avid or FCP over Canopus, just because you're much, much, much, much more likely to get hired as an Avid editor (or FCP editor) than you would as a Canopus editor. For a guy who runs a "closed shop" like I do, I'm not trying to get hired by anyone so that doesn't carry any weight. I'm just looking for the easiest, best, most integrated application. Right now that looks like Canopus to me. Haven't spent any time with it yet, this is just from watching the demos at DV Expo.
You'll have to ask him for details.
The reason to go Canopus instead of Avid was that I saw a demo presentation from both, and just liked the Canopus integration better. Canopus offered a more Vegas-like experience. I think the Apple integration was dynamite too, but I can't see spending big bucks on the Mac because, frankly, if Vegas comes out at NAB with a fully-integrated Vegas 7 that supports HVX footage the way it's supposed to be supported, I'll jump back on that faster than a fat guy jumping on a ham at Christmas dinner. So I don't really want to spend the bucks for the Mac hardware if I'm just going to end up on the PC again; especially in this transitionary period of Mac-moving-to-Intel.
If Vegas doesn't add support by NAB, then that would be the time to revisit the Mac situation. Hopefully by that time they'll have their Intel thing sorted out and then it can be evaluated more fully. So Canopus looks to be a promising stopgap, which may or may not become a full-time replacement. If Vegas does the right things, I'll go back to it, unless Canopus blows it away and from reading the Canopus forums, I don't think that's gonna happen.
For someone who hires themselves out as an editor, I'd definitely recommend Avid or FCP over Canopus, just because you're much, much, much, much more likely to get hired as an Avid editor (or FCP editor) than you would as a Canopus editor. For a guy who runs a "closed shop" like I do, I'm not trying to get hired by anyone so that doesn't carry any weight. I'm just looking for the easiest, best, most integrated application. Right now that looks like Canopus to me. Haven't spent any time with it yet, this is just from watching the demos at DV Expo.
Norm Sanders
Script Wrangler
Gotcha, thanks for the feedback.
I understand what you mean by the Avid/FCP thing ... while I feel I've got the skills/talent to do edit-for-hire jobs, there's almost never any requests for that with Vegas as the NLE ... more often FCP or Avid. So I'm in your boat as well "Closed Shop", where it's an all-in-one package & I edit my own jobs.
Since I'll be out of the HVX market for a while, I don't have to worry about the NLE issue for a while.
I understand what you mean by the Avid/FCP thing ... while I feel I've got the skills/talent to do edit-for-hire jobs, there's almost never any requests for that with Vegas as the NLE ... more often FCP or Avid. So I'm in your boat as well "Closed Shop", where it's an all-in-one package & I edit my own jobs.
Since I'll be out of the HVX market for a while, I don't have to worry about the NLE issue for a while.
As far as Premiere goes, the Matrox Axio/Premiere system fully supports native editing of DVCPRO HD (as well as DVCPRO 50 and DVCPRO), so I wouldn't be surprised to see similar support in PP pop up very soon. So that really starts to leave Vegas as the "odd man out" in terms of DVCPRO HD support. Are some Vegas users worked up about the (possible) lack of support for DVCPRO HD? Yes indeedy! Why shouldn't they be? I mean, we all love Vegas for it's unparalleled functionality as a software NLE and nobody's looking forward to switching NLEs. But just as we see Vegas for what it is, we also see the HVX for it's potential best-in-class performance. And regardless of where you place the "blame", the simple fact is that the acquistion method rules--not the NLE. The tail don't wag the dog. 
Ultimately, I think Vegas will need to have fully integrated support for DVCPRO HD and SMPTE MXF files if it wants to be seen as a serious professional product. In twelve months, anything less willl just be embarassing unless they want to position Vegas as a consumer/prosumer product. Which they don't--so look for Sony to grit their teeth and support DVCPRO HD in the next 12.
I think Vegas may need it's own tightly integrated codec, though. The Mainconcept codec will undoubtedly work in Vegas, but I'd be a little skeptical about the ultimate throughput and maybe quality. I remember when I used to use Discreet Cleaner with the Sorenson 3 codec for outputting web video. I wasn't happy with the results, but when I switched to Sorenson Sqeeze using the *exact* same codec, the results were significantly better. I'm not sure when I'll be switching to the HVX, but I'll be evaluating Avid Xpress Pro HD in the next few months as well as the Mainconcept DVCPro 50 codec in Vegas.
Ultimately, I think Vegas will need to have fully integrated support for DVCPRO HD and SMPTE MXF files if it wants to be seen as a serious professional product. In twelve months, anything less willl just be embarassing unless they want to position Vegas as a consumer/prosumer product. Which they don't--so look for Sony to grit their teeth and support DVCPRO HD in the next 12.
I think Vegas may need it's own tightly integrated codec, though. The Mainconcept codec will undoubtedly work in Vegas, but I'd be a little skeptical about the ultimate throughput and maybe quality. I remember when I used to use Discreet Cleaner with the Sorenson 3 codec for outputting web video. I wasn't happy with the results, but when I switched to Sorenson Sqeeze using the *exact* same codec, the results were significantly better. I'm not sure when I'll be switching to the HVX, but I'll be evaluating Avid Xpress Pro HD in the next few months as well as the Mainconcept DVCPro 50 codec in Vegas.
Barry_Green said:
To counter:
1. Is Panasonic charging Sony the same cost that they charged others or not? That alone is a significant factor.
2. Op-Atom; THE new exchange file format. Tell that to everyone who invested/dev'd for OMF. Or was that AAF. Or was that...?
3. 5000 HVX's? That's only about 35,000 units shy of what numbers Panasonic was throwing around at DVEXpo. The reps at Canon, JVC, and Sony were all together when those numbers were tossed out, I'll bet they're STILL in pain from the laughing that ensued.
There is no doubt the camera will sell well, simply as a result of the hype surrounding it, because of the success of the DVX in the past, and because of the fact that its affordable HD. I can't comment one way or the other about what Vegas will or won't support, but will continue to comment that the bullshit that continues to spew from somewhere, that it's a "Sony is afraid of Panasonic" thing or "Panasonic is a competitor" position is just that. It's a load of bull. What I don't know is or isn't a load of bull, is that Panasonic is playing equally with the various NLE manufacturers. Based on the marketing of this camera and format, I'm willing to wager that they're not.
But Spot, I don't get why Panasonic would do that. Now, I have absolutely no knowledge as to what they're charging anyone, and heck, maybe they have a scale. But as an impartial observer (I'm equally gung-ho for the DVX and for Vegas, and heck, I have a business stake in Vegas), I don't get what charging Sony more for the codec would gain them. Like I said, simply using Vegas isn't going to sway anyone toward Sony hardware. It certainly hasn't gotten its many, many loyal fans on this board to go over to Sony cameras. Looking at it from that perspective, I can't see what Panasonic could possibly have to gain by it.
I can accept that Sony is not stonewalling on DVCPRO because of its own camera line. There would be reasons for it to do so, but there are equally valid reasons for it not to do so, so that's fine. Nothing sinister at work on Sony's end.
But I don't see any reason why there would be on Panasonic's end, either.
Which is why, as I said, I hope they can both see the mutual advantage to making Vegas 7 HVX-ready. Which I sincerely hope happens, because that's about the time I'll be looking at purchasing an HVX.
I can accept that Sony is not stonewalling on DVCPRO because of its own camera line. There would be reasons for it to do so, but there are equally valid reasons for it not to do so, so that's fine. Nothing sinister at work on Sony's end.
But I don't see any reason why there would be on Panasonic's end, either.
Which is why, as I said, I hope they can both see the mutual advantage to making Vegas 7 HVX-ready. Which I sincerely hope happens, because that's about the time I'll be looking at purchasing an HVX.
Barry_Green
Moderator
I don't think any of us know the answer to that. I don't see why they'd charge an additional penny over anyone else -- they only have room to benefit. And they're cooperating with every manufacturer who wants to cooperate, so why single out Sony? Unless you think there may be some truth to whatever "panasonic vs. sony" thing you're trying to otherwise discredit?Spot said:
Apple's on board. Avid's on board. Matrox is on board. Canopus is on board. Even Liquid is mostly on board, lacking only a codec (a codec which, by the way, Pinnacle's parent Avid distributes for free). So... no, sorry, I just don't see why Vegas isn't on board.
In what time period? The first year? Easily achievable. The first month? Not likely. I said that by the end of the first month that it was on the market in all territories, there will easily be 5,000 installed base. Truth be told I think it'll happen way faster than that. And I think a disproportionate amount of those 5,000 buyers would be potential Vegas customers -- or potential lost Vegas customers.
Nobody likes Vegas more than I do (okay, Spot, maybe YOU do, but you're about the only one...) I really, really, really want to see them get on board with this.
Can't beat the laughing I got when Sony announced in Feb. 2005 that they'd have 6,000 HDV cameras sold by NAB, and then somehow at NAB two months later that number magically got inflated to 40,000. But the wording got changed, it became "HDV PRODUCT"... so they were including tape in there? Can't think of any other explanation. But I'd eat my hat, and several other people's hats, if Sony sold 34,000 HDV cameras in March 2005.
I'll make a prediction though. I predict that Panasonic will sell more HVXs in 2006 than Sony will sell Z1's, JVC will sell HD100's, and Canon will sell XLH1's, combined. So certainly that should be enough to get Vegas' attention?
What isn't a load of bull is that Vegas stands to lose significant market share if they don't just develop for it. That's practically guaranteed. So if they don't want to pay any licensing fees, how about just not paying any licensing fees? Develop an Op-Atom file importer, tap into the already-existing Windows XP SP2 DVCPRO-HD AV/C file transport protocol for capture, and require the user to access the free Avid codec. Or require the MainConcept codec. I'd gladly pay $150 to MainConcept so that I could have a fully working platform... it would cost far more (in time, in training, plus software acquisition) to have to switch to a different platform.
Heck, they could price it out separately: charge me $300 for a complete HVX Option Pack. I paid Serious Magic $200 extra to get the HDV Power Pack for DV Rack. I'd pay $300 cash today for a fully-implemented, properly-supported, full-fledged support-as-good-as-Canopus implementation of HVX support in Vegas. And I can almost guarantee you that at least 999 other people will as well, bare minimum. That's $300,000 they could have, and I bet they could have it prior to NAB.
Just give us the support. And no halfway half-hearted "well, if someone ELSE delivers a codec, and someone ELSE delivers a capture application, and someone ELSE delivers a file converter" nonsense. I expect full, unadulterated, proper support, the kind of support they gave the DVX which won them thousands of new customers. $300? Easy. Just tell me where to paypal it and when I can expect the upgrade.
No matter how anyone defines it, the ball is in Vegas' court. The other platforms have all found a way to make it work. Now it's up to the wizards in Wisconsin to figure out a way to make it work.
Gopher_Greene
Well-known member
Let me ask this, if Sony isn't targeting or doesn't care about the HVX market, what market are they targeting? I would guess that the DVX market has been very profitable for Vegas. I bought vegas, because it worked so well with the 24 pa DVX. I own Canopus, Adobe and Avid in addition, but do most of my work in Vegas because I like it. Now they stand to lose me as a customer because of a tiff with panasonic?
I don't know where the blame lies, and yes I can see Panasonic having a different price for Sony then Avid, thats typical in business at that level. I used to write data base programs for chemical companies, and pricing models are very sophisticated databases. Discounts and pentalties are offerd by product, volumes, companies long term contracts etc. etc. etc. So theres a million reaasons why the price could differ, however I never saw pricing that would have been inhibitive for competition. If its business agreements that holding this up, then it's probably on both sides of the issue, sony wants a cheaper price and panasonic is holding a price line, who blinks first?
However it goes, an NLE will not hold up my production once I recieve the camera, I will switch. Once I do and get set into a new workflow with HD it would take a mighty big point to make me switch again. So if sony wants my business they need to get aggresive about resolving the issue.
Do you think the same issues will revolve around Red?
I don't know where the blame lies, and yes I can see Panasonic having a different price for Sony then Avid, thats typical in business at that level. I used to write data base programs for chemical companies, and pricing models are very sophisticated databases. Discounts and pentalties are offerd by product, volumes, companies long term contracts etc. etc. etc. So theres a million reaasons why the price could differ, however I never saw pricing that would have been inhibitive for competition. If its business agreements that holding this up, then it's probably on both sides of the issue, sony wants a cheaper price and panasonic is holding a price line, who blinks first?
However it goes, an NLE will not hold up my production once I recieve the camera, I will switch. Once I do and get set into a new workflow with HD it would take a mighty big point to make me switch again. So if sony wants my business they need to get aggresive about resolving the issue.
Do you think the same issues will revolve around Red?
Jim Arthurs
Well-known member
I agree completely! I'd pony up $300 in a heart beat for full P2 support.Barry_Green said:
Someone should start a poll "How much *extra* would you be willing to pay?"
Jim Arthurs
I'd gladly pay a few hundred extra dollars to have the DVCPro support from Vegas - a product I just jumped into this year.
Having just registered the product, I can tell you I don't remember ever telling Sony what I was importing or from what for that matter.
e
Having just registered the product, I can tell you I don't remember ever telling Sony what I was importing or from what for that matter.
e
RaySigmond
Well-known member
The question I would like to know is how much extra if any are users of the other NLE's (FCP, Canopus, Avid) paying to support DVCPro/P2? Shouldn't all things be relative?