[Steve Connor]

[Bill Davis] “At this point, we’re going to hit a communications wall.
You keep trying to “discuss” X – while trying far too hard, IMO – to avoid actually gaining the practical experience to have a viable frame of reference.
Maybe it’s a little bit like sex. Some things just can’t be adequately understood if all you do is talk about them?
“

It’s helpful if you quote the poster you’re trying to “burn”

[Steve Connor]

I love Motion but the sad thing is that Motion probably hasn’t got a future where it’s being developed as anything other than a generator for FCPX.

If only Apple would let Affinity have it, or perhaps the Motion VFX Team 🙂

[Steve Connor]

[Charlie Austin] “lol… I kinda like the panels in Pr. However I do feel that when you get a lot of media and piles of bins, X is exponentially easier to navigate without lots of clicking/tabbing etc.”

I agree, however the ability to expand any panel to full screen with a single keystroke is incredibly useful and certainly something I would like to see in FCPX

[Steve Connor]

[Robin S. Kurz] “That, and for GUIs that are an unusable mess to begin with. 😛
“

Yes, been editing on PPro today, look at this unusable mess

[Steve Connor]

[Robin S. Kurz] “And I personally most certainly wouldn’t want that mess of interface juggling that others have, that so many people bizarrely consider “flexibility” either. I LOVE the fact that no matter when and where I open FCP X, I know exactly what I’m looking at and where to look for anything and everything else. ZERO surprises from someone that thought his jumbled version of the interface was somehow way mo’ better. I’m simply not that much of a control freak I guess.”

Yep, those customisable UIs are for control freaks

[Steve Connor]

[Oliver Peters] “[Robin S. Kurz] “to avoid the continuous visual clutter.”

One editor’s clutter is another’s useful visual information. 🙂
“

Just a reminder of the inflexibility of the FCPX interface. I’m hoping more customisation makes it’s way into FCPX over the next few updates.

[Steve Connor]

[Oliver Peters] “In doing that you want to be able to easily compare the two versions. Stacking is a better way than X’s forward-backward timeline navigation approach. Even FCP7’s tabbed timeline, where a tab could be pulled off as a separate window, was better.
“

Just playing back the project with the skimmer in the browser would be good

[Steve Connor]

[Robin S. Kurz] “MotionVFX’s site… so cost clearly can’t be an argument either.
“

I have a dream where Apple buy MotionVFX and roll all their fantastic templates and Plugins into FCPX for free 🙂

[Steve Connor]

That’s not how I pictured Bill at all!!!

[Steve Connor]

[Bill Davis] “But that said, there IS a danger, in my opinion, of mistaking the fact that you haven’t explored how a system in X (whether it’s keywording or, for example, the asset auto-renaming module tucked away in the info tab) that MIGHT prove a superb solution for a better X workflow in specific situations – but won’t – merely because somebody hasn’t had the occasion or curiosity to actually examine what it’s potential is.
“

Neither of us mentioned the fact we HADN’T explored it. I certainly HAVE but I’ve found for a lot of projects it’s simply quicker to jump straight in.

I’m not saying you SHOULDN’T use or explore it, I’ve used it on long form projects and a feature I cut with X, but for me the irony is that I don’t NEED to use it all the time because the other tools speed things up so much.