Talk:Vegas Pro

message: 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)
thread_title: Piracy Section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I've made some fairly major changes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I've made (more) major changes 

message: I've added new/better screenshots, as well as a media format table.--Tagliare 06:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work on this. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: vegas is now 7.0
[] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartoonborg (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vegas 7.0

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Awfully glowing entry 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. --12:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  8.0 information needed 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:DVDArchitect4 Full.jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Vegas7 ColorCorrector.jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Vegas7 SurroundPanner.jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Vegas8-home.jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Vegaspro8 32BitColorSpace.jpg

message: This sounds more like an advertisement/someone telling me about a product vs the encyclopedia feel. Colinstu (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong 

message: '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)
thread_title:  First? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Awards - not exactly 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Seems like advertisement not a Encyclopedic article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Screenshot / Article picture useless. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page should be moved 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140424230033/http://blog.sony.com/press/sony-announces-latest-version-of-vegas-pro-software/ to http://blog.sony.com/press/sony-announces-latest-version-of-vegas-pro-software/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515074212/http://soundwrx.net/digitalmusicreviewsblog/?page_id=1764 to http://soundwrx.net/digitalmusicreviewsblog/?page_id=1764
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing historic info 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Films edited with Vegas Pro 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy Heading 

message: When Will VEGAS Pro 21.0 Come Out? 13TVE8322 (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The new version has been out since 14th Augusut. 195.81.221.4 (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  $!