I moved ahead to photoshop and created something like this while just playing with shapes I noticed that it looks similar to a professional timeline so I found some graphics and made them look like this (Similar to filmora interface because graphics like the eye button and lock button is taken from that editor only)
1 Like
I don’t see a big difference, to be honest 
3 Likes
Well difference from shotcut or filmora.
And if from shotcut, if you add clip in the timeline it will be flat in interface just like you see in premiere pro.
Here’s the challenge… the Shotcut project has only two primary developers. Would users be happy if the developers stopped the advancement of all new features in order to focus on creating a new UI that does the same thing we already have today? Probably not.
There are a million things that would be nice to have, but resource constraints force the focus to be put on what is needed the most. And given that the developers are volunteering their time to create Shotcut as open source, remember that the roadmap is based on their wishes more than user wishes. (I do not speak for the developers; I’m simply providing reason to sympathize with their limited resources.)
2 Likes
Agree. I just didn’t want him feeling disappointed if no action happened on his feature request. Many great requests have received no action due to limited resources.
Hey @Austin , I already know shotcut provides us too much and can’t do everything we want, but they can also try to build this type of UI in their microsoft store paid version because it’s a paid version their and many users like better UI in paid Version, sorry I didn’t told you I am talking about microsoft store version.
The free and opensource one is good enough to do my work,
But apart of that I also use paid version from microsoft store and I am feeling bad that both of them have same UI and features, at least paid version have to be improved even if they increase the price for this because for free here it is providing more than enough to us but paid seems boring.
Our free/open source license effectively prohibits that. The license requires that the user is able to replace any binary component if they wish (for example, to integrate their own bug fix or improvement). But the store app is inherently not modifiable; so, we get around that by providing the exact same build for download as a portable zip or installer. If we make a feature for the store, we would have to provide this same sort of modifiable build outside the store. And that puts us back into where are today. The value of the store version is clearly spelled out on our download page and in the store description:
- automated upgrades
- no need to come back to our download page and see its advertisements
- financially supporting the developers
Creating an alternative build of Shotcut to add store features under a non-open source license would require the removal of many valuable components and features that are only available under the free/open source license.
OK, Sad to hear that. Now I am OK with this UI only.