Well don't agree that there's a cripple fight between MovieGallery and other video gallery software. MovieGallery has some distinct features/differences that make it unique. We have always had the web-publishing part in mind when developing the app and we needed re-compression and stability. That's why we choose to build it around QuickTime. This is my opinion on your ideas: QuickTime is fully extensible by adding components. Today we can play a wide selection of video formats and more is coming. When Tiger arrives we will also have support for H264 which is one of the best video formats seen to date. We could have implemented ffmpeg support but we needed the export functions of QuickTime in order to make this app happen. There's also some legal problems around ffmpeg that seems bad at the moment. Read more at http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/ You say that previews only are made during import which is actually wrong. You can easily ctrl-click on any frame in the movie and build a new thumbnail. You can also choose an picture as a thumbnail. We have always tried to follow the human interface guidelines from Apple (even though Apple don't do it themselves). You say that MG is less space efficient than the competition. Do you know that you can hide the toolbar by clicking at the icon in the window's upper right corner? Do you know that you can hide the left pane by dragging the divider all the way to the left? You will only have the movie left on screen which seems pretty space efficient to me. Yes, MG has a totally different approach to libraries that the competition. We work document-based and it will soon show that this makes a great difference ;-) You want more fields? Which? best regards / Jörgen (Version 1.2) |