Jonathan Levin wrote: … wonder why they have a "Source" group, or what it does.…
uhm, well… I'm not the custodian of Motion (super-user fox_mahoney could tell), and using it just since vers.5.... but, reasoning that Source-Group is mainly: 'historical' = leftovers, when it has to work with layer-based FinalCutPro7 (!!) … (fox found out, some Titles are unaltered from 2005* )
For the actual situation, that 'source' layer is mandatory only if the Titel should affect the underlying content, example: my
title = watch the demo: the title is not just an overlay, but pushes the video a bit aside (therefor its name). Or, the title blurs or dims or desaturates the clip applied to… then, including the source is just smart
But for most canned Titles, it's annoying, that you can not 'transform' its position without moving the clip.... indeed.
* now you know, why we handful of Motion-aficionados desperately beg for years for an from-the-ground overhaul of our favorite toy, alone the silly waste of UI-screen estate (layers list TWO times, hello?!?); or at least let 3 interns 'broom' its code … <sigh>
The release of the iMacPro/The Beast gave me hope for an all-new version of Motion - rendering 8000 particles colliding? A snap. No hope. Next stop: Mojave with its Metal2 'accelerator' (and many other built-in marvel on OS level…) should demand a revamp… we'll see, hope is low…
Motion is a masterpiece in its concept, no doubt, that whole share/plug-in idea, finally it creates XML-code by a mouse-pushing graphical user interface - that's awesome!… but hopelessly obsolete (alone the 'design' of some elements, sooo iMovie05/1998) … aside it lacks all sorts of Behaviors, example: (publishable) audio & tracking, boolean (if… then… else), tic-based (every frame/second/…), physics (particle bounce) etc etc etc. But that would demand a VERY revamp, for example establishing Nodes as GUI … <pant> <sigh>
just to illustrate my point:
The wishlist is loooong.
But who am I? A kitchen table producer. And Motion gods like Simon or Mark never had commented on a probable future version of MotionX …