If this is ok with blender peeps that I implement something like this... I can start work on it.
Is there any major reasons I *shouldn't* do something similar to that? On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok here's the ultimate sucky mockup for a 2D masking environment. I > focuses on a getting the basics of masking well done. leaving better > integration with 3D scene for later. > > http://www.zanqdo.com/tmp/MockUpMask.png > > Daniel Salazar > 3Developer.com > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com > <[email protected]> wrote: >> after a chat with Matt we agreed that there are two areas to take care >> now or eventually: >> >> 1- masking tools: simple, independant from 3D view, interactive, >> probably work inside *image editor*. rotobezier, power windows, etc go >> here >> >> 2- integration of 3D scene: this should be done by making a better >> *blender internal*. the renderer should handle non obstructive >> rendering of custom jobs, like it does with material preview renders. >> It should handle different cameras or resolution (to be able to render >> outside of main view's screenspace) and it should be able to render >> simple geometry like shadeless objects or normals as fast as possible. >> This is actually simmilar to an old design of mine that uses the 3D >> view instead of the image editor but still focuses on tweaking Blender >> Internal to be more flexible >> >> https://docs0.google.com/drawings/edit?id=1VLs3SkOjn9TVYtet0KvNTVLWvcgaH4gVYIUrMOMp_xo&authkey=CIK37ecL&hl=en >> >> what Pete is doing is probably a mix between the two and that's >> probably a bad idea :s >> >> cheers! >> >> Daniel Salazar >> 3Developer.com >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> to elaborate the problems with everything that has to be with scene >>> data and compositing together are speed/interactivity and integration. >>> what do you suggest? >>> >>> Daniel Salazar >>> 3Developer.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> What do you suggest? (not focusing on the pure topic of masking) >>>> >>>> Daniel Salazar >>>> 3Developer.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Matt Ebb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Indeed! :) *but!* there are other uses for having a geometry node in >>>>>> the compositor like bringing geometry normals, vectors, alphas and >>>>>> what not and all interactive (no need for regular render). It's what >>>>>> other compositors do to integrate the 3D view with the compositor. We >>>>>> can see this as a step of integration. What do you think Matt? >>>>> >>>>> I think it's a bad idea. Blender already has a renderer and that's >>>>> what it's for. Duplicating code to make an entirely separate renderer >>>>> that's only used in the comp would end up in a world of >>>>> overcomplicated pain. If there are problems with the workflow of >>>>> rendering elements to be used in comp, then that should be worked on >>>>> itself, I don't think the solution is to ignore it and build an >>>>> entirely separate thing. >>>>> >>>>> But that's all putting the cart way before the horse anyway, when so >>>>> much of blender's compositor is still at quite a basic level for 2d >>>>> manipulations. >>>>> >>>>> Matt >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Bf-committers mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
