Proposal for a More Efficient Timeline

FCPX.guru wrote: " I still would like to have a visuel control on how titles, (foreign versions... ) , effects layers, and so many things... stack themselves. "

You are free to move clips up an down to stack them as you wish. But they're stacked in a specific order to start with for a specific purpose. Rearranging the stack would cause things to not show up on screen properly. If I put a cutaway over a title, for example, the title is now hidden.

So things are stacked just fine as is, and you CAN rearrange the stack order to your hearts desire.

Or I'm missing the point...

well, sorry, but yes , with all due respect , you are missing the point , and the same goes for other comments. This has absolutely nothing to see with the stackin order itself. I repeat :

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STACKING ORDER

(Sorry for caps but how many times ? )

Elements will still be stacked the same, only with empty intervals... ... and will interact the same regarding compositing. You would be able to align visually the clips you want... titles, same cam etc. And if compositing order prevails you don't "role manage it " this way. You change the role of a particular clip, thats it.

Besides: 50% of compositing will present ... say a Generator and beyond... a title or a graphic. They would stack themselves right along the whole project ! as long as you don't compound

Come on , titles, compositing... messing with editing the way it is . One of the last remaining flaws of this software .

I use secondaries for this purpose and it's time consuming

Stu Wart wrote: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STACKING ORDER

(Sorry for caps but how many times ? )

Elements will still be stacked the same, only with empty intervals... ... and will interact the same regarding compositing. You would be able to align visually the clips you want... titles, same cam etc. And if compositing order prevails you don't "role manage it " this way. Come on , titles, compositing... messing with editing the way it is . One of the last remaining flaws of this software .

Stu, please use Photoshop, Affinity or Gimp to show what you mean. At the risk of completely misunderstanding you again: would those "empty intervals" not result in more space wasted? Like when a title in a conventional FCPX timeline can be on the same, er, height than the connected clip next to it, but in your case needed it's own lane? And even if you could zoom in on a video lane, you'd have an entire purple column reserved for just one tiny superimposed title ...

Axel wrote:

Stu Wart wrote: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STACKING ORDER

(Sorry for caps but how many times ? )

Elements will still be stacked the same, only with empty intervals... ... and will interact the same regarding compositing. You would be able to align visually the clips you want... titles, same cam etc. And if compositing order prevails you don't "role manage it " this way. Come on , titles, compositing... messing with editing the way it is . One of the last remaining flaws of this software .

Stu, please use Photoshop, Affinity or Gimp to show what you mean. At the risk of completely misunderstanding you again: would those "empty intervals" not result in more space wasted? Like when a title in a conventional FCPX timeline can be on the same, er, height than the connected clip next to it, but in your case needed it's own lane? And even if you could zoom in on a video lane, you'd have an entire purple column reserved for just one tiny superimposed title ...

Well ... you don't need the photoshop because you see what I mean .

Yes, there would be vertical space wasted. And you know titles rarely come by... one in a project . Come on