Dear Ken
What value are you placing on a magazine review as to the "future" of your editing software decisions? They offer an opinion about the product, only an opinion, they don't control you.
It's nothing to do with me personally. I've used Vegas since it first came out - and will continue to do so. The article's relevance has to do with those video editors who want to go pro and are either deciding to upgrade or planning to purchase a new set-up from scratch. These decisions could involve a significant investment on their part. The first decision would be the platform. Should it be Apple or Windows? The comparison between FCP 4 and Vegas could help them with that crucial decision.
I can edit just as effectivly using Premiere 4, as I can with Premiere Pro (7). I can also type a letter using notepad or the latest version of Word. The basic difference are the additional "toys" that are added in order to keep up, and create the newest versions.
If you can exhibit the same effectiveness with Notepad as you could with Word, or Premiere 4 as with Premiere 7, then frankly you can't be very effective. Notepad's data handling capacity compared to Word is analogous to a teacup vs. a lake. However, if your word processing is limited to a few paragraphs, you might not notice the difference. Similarly if your editing is limited to one video track and one audio track, and you have the time to sit around rendering every little editing change to check it, then I suppose you wouldn't be able to detect the difference between Premiere versions 4 and versions 7, or Vegas 4.
It has been long known that 98% + of the transitions in editing are straight cuts, the long list of transitions that are included in editing software look impressive as a list, but are quite terrifying to actually look at as a cut.
This is a rather snobbish opinion of video editing. Why are you assuming that editors that avail themselves of the latest software simply do so to use transitions and fluff? I think that your characterization more aptly applies to novice or hobby editors, using the $99 dollar variety of editing software available free with their new camcorders. That type of editor includes 'special effects' to disguise their weak data handling capacity.
I use Vegas professionally, which as you point out rarely requires transitions, etc. However my job requires me to edit multiple camera shoots, involving sometimes 10 or more separate video tracks and 24 or more audio tracks. I primarily use cuts, cross-fades, compositing and chroma-keying, which Vegas allows me to view in real-time without rendering. I also avail myself of the 5.1 Dolby Surround mixing, since a large portion of my final output is destined for DVD. This level of editing power, which is repeated to some extent in Premiere Pro, could never be accomplished with Premiere 4, no matter how you rate yourself as an editor.
If Vegas is never upgraded in the future, or Premiere etc, what exactly is it that you won't be able to do that makes you concerned?
As digital video technology grows, the software makers will respond accordingly and I'll respond in kind to keep myself current.
I have been in this industry quite long enough to know you'll all be using the new latest and greatest, from whoever makes it as soon as it appears, forgetting all about the last latest and greatest.
I used to use a hi-8 digital camcorder, but I upgraded to a 3-chip mini-DV. What a difference. I've had my Sony VX2000 for three years now. But, if a superior camera comes out in a price range I can afford, I'll definitely take the plunge. I trust Videomaker magazine will keep me informed.
You use whatever works for you, but any NLE can do a straight cut, the rest is fluff, eventually people wanting to edit will [hopefully] realize it.
Maybe, you ought to consider broadening your horizons to keep up with the modern world. Give MS Word a chance, it may just make your life a little easier. People used handsaws for centuries, I hope you don't resent the fact that I took the plunge and bought a circular saw. Going through those 2X4's are just not the same ;-)
