Talk:Vegas Pro

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I think the title should be changed to something like "Sony Vegas" to be more consistent with the naming convention applied to similar programs such as "Adobe Premiere Pro" and "Pinnacle Studio". —This unsigned comment is by Zunaid (talk • contribs) 21:20, 26 October 2005‎ (UTC)[reply]

Piracy Section[edit]

The spin on the Piracy section makes me really want to Pirate this software. The wikipedia entry here practically gives instructions on how to pirate Vegas, as well as arguments to convince folks that this is a fair way to "own" the software.

It costs $599 and some people don't want to pay that much. That's fair I suppose.
What about the development costs or costs of Piracy to the company?
"Many people choose to use illigitimate methods to own Vegas." If it's pirated, then they don't own it , by definition. This section should stop here.
Step 1, lookup Torrent, note that it'll work for free.
Step 2, here's how to make your pirated version look unpirated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.105.111 (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I've moved some recent additions around and cleaned them up. Also added box art for the main product. Plenty of statements requiring citation. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some fairly major changes[edit]

Added some detail to the features, that little info box at the right and also some links to some of the things that needed citations, but I don't know how to make citations!--Tagliare 03:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: never mind, I've figured it out (how to make citations)--Tagliare 03:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made (more) major changes[edit]

I've organised the article a bit, splitting the material into "history" "features and etc. I also added a ton of material into "features", as well as cleaning up the history section. I also added more critisism of the product. --Tagliare 06:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additions[edit]

I've added new/better screenshots, as well as a media format table.--Tagliare 06:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on this. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the images work better on the right for multiple screen resolutions. Left aligned tends to break the paragraph flow and can lead to indented section headings. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas 7.0[edit]

vegas is now 7.0

[[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartoonborg (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awfully glowing entry[edit]

The entry steps really close to POV with all the wonderful things to say about the software. Even the criticism section offers praise. --24.249.108.133 00:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. The whole article reads so glowingly about Vegas that I have a hard time believing it wasn't written by a SONY employee sent on a mission to create this page. (Who knows; maybe it was.) --66.219.188.129 03:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The obvious is only being pointed out. Both praise and criticism is noted. And what is wrong with praise, as long as it is factual?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Terror adagio (talk • contribs) 03:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. While the overall tone of the article feels positive, the writer does an adequate job of backing up the statements with rationale and facts.(Myscrnnm 05:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with the first two posts; this article seems biased. The page to me appears as if written by either devoted fans of Vegas or Sony employees themselves. Even though it might be true that Vegas is the best editing program available (I have not used Vegas myself), then the page still has the sound of a sales article - even the criticisms turns out to be strong points. I wonder what Sony will have to change for their next version of Vegas? --118.71.213.120 (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much biased as written in the language of a sales brochure. It's unsurprising that an enthusiast of the subject should want to write about it - this applies to all of Wikipedia - but the articles for some of Sony Vegas's competitors manage to have more of the feeling of encyclopaedia entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.134.175 (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas was first in this, Vegas was first in that, Vegas kicks ass, Vegas is the best, Vegas had this years ago, Vegas is great, Vegas... Give me a break. You have to be very dense not to see this was written either by a fanboi or Sony. Nikos (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just had to check this discussion page for this reason. There simply is no criticism. One thing to start with could be a comparison regarding the handling of sequences of video material with large complex projects. In Final Cut Pro, for instance, you don't have to leave your project to switch between different sequence edits. In Vegas they offer as an equivalent the feature of nesting projects, which is a much clumsier and more cluttery way to handle this. Additionally, for nested projects large audio proxy files have to be rendered, which also takes time. This difference makes Vegas much less attractive for large film projects and also explains, why in the "Adwards" section you only find music clips and documentaries cited. - Another thing is, that you have only one preview window, unlike Avid, FCP or Premiere. So you can not view your frame on the timeline and try to find a match from other clips at the same time. - As for the pace of development of the software you can say that the basic interface has not changed in years and real innovation happens at a fairly small scale. It has mostly been made up of the implementation of support for new formats and new cameras (and, ok, full screen video preview for single display setups as of version 8). In fact, regarding audio (lack of clip-based effects) and handling of automation, Vegas is comparatively behind. - User support is another point that should be mentioned. The article claims "The online community of Vegas users has produced a vast array of such scripts which can be downloaded and run without any scripting knowledge." Well, tell me where, so I can verify. Is Sony helping to it? If you were just using a trial version of vegas, you cannot even ask Sony a question about it, because you have no serial number for a registered product. So you cannot find out about scripts and if Sony provides a upload/download portal for those. There are more major things that I'd think should be covered here, which would be useful for readers to find out about the strengths and downsides of different video editing applications. I'll try to remember and come back for this when I have more time. - Again, I agree the article comes along too much like a vendor sheet. --85.179.8.32 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a user of Vegas, Premier, and Final Cut Pro, I'm confused as to why the ones above are complaining. Sound like they are the biased ones!? I myself posted a criticism or two but compared to Premier and FCP, there are many positive things to say, and historically Vegas was first in many things -- something worth mentioning in an Encyclopedia for perspective. Nevertheless the article could be cleaned up. Babahu (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8.0 information needed[edit]

Someone needs to adapt the new information from this site for info on Vegas Pro 8 in the article and if possible, get a screenshot. --Jack Zhang 12:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --12:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terror adagio (talk • contribs) 12:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DVDArchitect4 Full.jpg[edit]

Image:DVDArchitect4 Full.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Vegas7 ColorCorrector.jpg[edit]

Image:Vegas7 ColorCorrector.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Vegas7 SurroundPanner.jpg[edit]

Image:Vegas7 SurroundPanner.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Vegas8-home.jpg[edit]

Image:Vegas8-home.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Vegaspro8 32BitColorSpace.jpg[edit]

Image:Vegaspro8 32BitColorSpace.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong[edit]

This sounds more like an advertisement/someone telling me about a product vs the encyclopedia feel. Colinstu (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit strange, but all studios I tour/visit for computer "repair" (mainly, somebody can't empty a trash/recycle bin) see to be Avid, Media 100, Final Cut, etc. Just an observation. Most consumers I visit who aren't using Apple have this program installed. And yes, this article seems more like an ad than anything. Japanimation station (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a user of Vegas I read the entry as accurate description, no more enthusiastic than an Apple user writing about features of an iphone. I would like to know what is it about the writing that makes it advertisement? Babahu (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First?[edit]

'Vegas was the first NLE that allowed you to put a variety of formats on the timeline and just edit them. Other NLEs would require you to render or "conform" these down to a single format.' I'm pretty sure Adobe Premiere never required any sort of conforming prior to the "Pro" versions, so I would question the accuracy of this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.52.65 (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember switching from Premiere to Vegas because of this reason. Premiere could only import very little else than DV, and they long time stubbornly rejected even acknowleding that a lot of people had started using found or second hand footage for art work. Adobe's standard answer used to be, that professionals do not work with that kind of material. If you still question the accuracy of the statement, come up with facts. --85.179.8.32 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I switched to Vegas from both Premier and Final Cut Pro as Vegas was much more flexible, accepted many formats, required no rendering, and did simple editing and transitions much faster, i.e. fewer clicks or mouse moves. Only recently has Premier and FCP caught up, so Vegas was the "first." Babahu (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awards - not exactly[edit]

The fact that Vegas has been used by engineers and artists, doesn't really have any relevance to awards. The statements are fairly general and mention various recording artists, and goes further to say the that the software is popular for documentaries. It seems this section doesn't really belong here and lacks any real reference. Cerealbox (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know a number of people who use Vegas. They make money with the videos they edit. They fit the category of vis a vis musicians, engineers, and indie / documentary makers. Perhaps since Vegas works better on lower power machines the poorer the user the more likely they use Vegas? Half of a joke. But awards....hmmm...perhaps the title is wrong. Babahu (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like advertisement not a Encyclopedic article[edit]

"This article comes off as a complete and utter advertisement for this product rather than an encyclopedic article with no bias. I mean my god, it seems like Sony wrote this article for god's sake."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.15.151.193 (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This unsigned comment seems to have the same problem. There are no references or details. Almost as if the commenter has a negative backstory -- i.e. wants to put Vegas down a notch, or doesn't like Vegas. Babahu (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot / Article picture useless.[edit]

Seriously,

what's the point of uploading such a low-res version of a program interface? The screenshot is too low resolution to illustrate the point of the article. Either delete it or upload a higher resolution per Wiki fair use policy ASAP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody-7 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page should be moved[edit]

This product is no longer called Sony Vegas Pro as of version 14. MAGIX, the new developer of this software, lists it on their website as Vegas Pro. I feel this page should be moved to a new page called "Vegas Pro", however I lack the experience to properly make the move in a way that follows Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:1:DE10:CD12:FD88:5631:2663 (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vegas Pro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vegas Pro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130205173058/http://www.videoguys.com/Blog/2005/4/8/NIGHTLINE+is+the+Right+Line+for+Sony+Vegas/0x7636ac5e74c3f9c3b69f7d5a7948a07a.aspx to http://www.videoguys.com/Blog/2005/4/8/NIGHTLINE%2Bis%2Bthe%2BRight%2BLine%2Bfor%2BSony%2BVegas/0x7636ac5e74c3f9c3b69f7d5a7948a07a.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing historic info[edit]

I would like to know WHEN the first version came out, WHEN it was sold to Sony. The information that it was sold I knew already but I have the expectation to an encyclopedia that it's a bit more specific. When doing research I'd like to be able to see what features the software had when it was used for some editing. --Panoramedia (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Films edited with Vegas Pro[edit]

Should we add a list of films that were edited with Vegas Pro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troutfarm27 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Sony Vegas Pro 13 UI.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Heading[edit]

The new and improperly researched “controversy” section likely needs to go, as it was based solely on one article which was in turn based primary on one attention-seeking twitter post and various heated reviews also based on that same post. The original source article has since been updated with new information that basically negates the whole issue as being a misunderstanding / user error, in that licenses have NOT been revoked. 142.51.224.72 (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

$![edit]

When Will VEGAS Pro 21.0 Come Out? 13TVE8322 (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The new version has been out since 14th Augusut. 195.81.221.4 (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]