On Mar 5, 2015 6:13 AM, "Johnny Matthews" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Oh you burned me so bad there.
It wasn't intended as a burn, and I regret that you saw it as such. The idea that a multiplication isn't complex was directed at the suggestion that there would be “efficiencies” if coded at a more “atomic” level; a node that merely performs a multiplication would not see such gains. I am also curious why you discredited Mr. McSween's line of reasoning above? If one examines industry leading tools such as Nuke, one will not find a multiplication blur vignette node. While this might seem a curious omission in an industrial imaging application, we can wonder if the vignette node: A) Does the node model the dispersion and chromatic aberration characteristics of a lens near the periphery? B) Does the node, when dealing with A above, manage variable primary reference spaces correctly? C) Does the node offer compression adaption for anamorphic or other non-spherical lens representations? D) Does the node offer variable density of the light occlusion? E) Does the node adapt to the variable distortions of a lens model? Most of these facets are unique and complex, and as such, would likely be modeled into a more granular set of nodes, which would be welcome I am certain. The nuances of each of these would require an understanding of optics to model correctly, and designed to some of the standards already relevant for a visual effects workflow. Hopefully the depth of your knowledge can cover some of the above issues and a more granular set of nodes is plausible. With respect, TJS _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
