This is a question for long times users.

As an Avid switcher candidates I tend to try to reproduce the Avid interface: one viewer on the left, one edit viewer on the right, the edit timeline stripview on the bottom, the bin at left corner and a second screen for display.

But I fell that, this way, I don't benefit of all LW's flexibility and power. In another thread, Drkuli said:



So, how do you use the different tools? Do you use a lot of viewers? Do you use stripviexw all the time? etc.

Romuald wrote:
What a tough question! The whole point of the Lightworks interface is that there is no "right" way to do anything. It's designed to be as flexible as possible, and to get in the way of the edit process as little as possible.

The one thing that I would strongly recommend though is that you don't try and force LW to be Avid. That won't be useful at all.

If you hang around the Avid forums much you will see posts from users migrating from Liquid, Premiere, or FCP. They often start with something like "I'm trying to do XYZ and Avid won't let me". Invariably they're confusing the technique with the goal. You have learned techniques to reach your goals with Avid that are unlikely to be appropriate here.

Play with LW a little, experiment. Who cares how many sources you have displayed? That's whatever you feel comfortable with. There are no rules, which is what makes LW one of the fastest NLEs out there. Just remember that it's based on a mark-and-park editing paradigm, not drag and drop, and not three-point editing.

jwrl wrote:


Well, that was my point... I was asking for tips or ideas of what I could do to get profit of the flexibility.

I know there isn't one "good way", I was just looking for testimonies from power users.

I'm afraid that you insist on getting an approved 'routine' of LW usage. I think, there is no such thing, you have to discover your own, by means of practice. And this is beautiful

"Somebody used to see the fixed, dual source/record viewer's section on the workspace, will not welcome the idea of unlimited number of floating viewers with individually switchable behavior for each one. All the more, the single viewer."

I understand that the early days of windows-based software, popping up a window for every task was popular. But, this practice is definitely on its way out -- if not dead. Even Adobe is eliminating this type oF GUI.

It creates a cluttered work area, one needs to keep selecting the window that should be active, windows cover over critical information in other windows, and one has to manually close each opened window.

The 2011 approach can be seen in FCP X where there is a single unified window that can reorganize itself as needed. The alternative is Media Composer where a click on a toolbar button brings up, for example, the complete color correction toolset. (As desktops lose favor, an NLE needs to work on a laptop.)

Windows get in the way of editing. For example, to apply a simple transition brings up a very complex window full of fussy controls. (One really only needs to pick the FX and set duration.) Depending on what button one clicks, yet another huge window comes up that covers the everything.

Having a screen full of windows is not the same as giving people lots of ways of doing something. I fact, it could be argued that having one way to steer a car has been critical to its success.

Do the developers plan to keep LW as it was in the `90s or rewrite it. Because the words "will not welcome" really will become "will not use." Yes, LW is free. But, with FCP X at only $400 a super NLE is no longer really expensive.

Yeah, let history show what kind of success FCPX will be. The GUI and interaction is daring, to say the least and I can imagine, many will stay on the current version of FCP as long as possible. Just like many are sticking to Windows XP until it won't be an option anymore due to outdated drivers et al.