Hi,

I just prefer to see this added in a way it's not changing the regular render 
flow. MultiView render is a new feature, and only used (very) occasionally. If 
you add this in a way that keeps existing code and data structures work, it can 
be done with minimal risk. Bugs then stay in the stereo-render feature, not for 
all the rest of Blender.

Many ways to do it though. 

It can also be via the 'get result' api, which then can give a complete render 
result from views (or just the old one).

That would be then more like:

render -> views -> renderresult -> layers -> passes.


-Ton-

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ton Roosendaal  Blender Foundation   [email protected]    www.blender.org
Blender Institute   Entrepotdok 57A  1018AD Amsterdam   The Netherlands

On 6 Apr, 2013, at 13:55, Brecht Van Lommel wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Ton Roosendaal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I would be very careful storing UI assumptions in data.
>> 
>> The current system already has layer names and pass names. The 'view' names 
>> can be defined in the UI, and how it's all stored and retrieved internally 
>> software can handle transparently. That way you don't regret design 
>> decisions when things change internally after all.
> 
> Personally I think explicit views > layers > passes (or layers > views
>> passes) storage is better. My guess is that the way it's stored in
> EXR files is for compatibility / simplicity. EXR also has no concept
> of renderlayers and only stores them by name, yet we do have separate
> data structures for them in Blender. So why are views different?
> 
> Maybe it requires a few extra code changes but I think the final code
> will be more clear.
> 
>> Another good trick is to look at code design in a way "what would break if 
>> we remove the feature". If things can get added and removed without bad 
>> versioning, you're much safer for future.
>> 
>> Forcing the render result to always store views is in this category. "Views" 
>> are optional, and can best stay that way - if possible.
> 
> RenderResult is also not stored in files, so I don't think we need to
> worry about versioning. Maybe there's a few places in the UI like the
> image editor or some compositing node where you want to specify a
> view, but I think in that case you want to have the view as a separate
> setting from the pass anyway?
> 
> So as far as I can tell, nothing would break if we remove this feature?
> 
> Brecht.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to