On 24 September 2012 13:09, Jehan Pagès <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Jon Nordby <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 24 September 2012 05:19, Jehan Pagès <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> If you are interested in continuing to work on libora I'll review and >>>> integrate the patches you provide, and give you commit access when >>>> you've completed a couple. >>> >>> Cool. I don't know if I'll clone the repo, or maybe simply send some >>> patches, if ever I have any to send. >> >> Either works fine by me, as long as you create a bugreport or send an >> email when you want it merged (I don't have email subscriptions in >> gitorious, too spammy). A separate repo is of course a bit easier for >> bigger amounts of work. > > Indeed. I just meant that I don't know if I would have big amount of > work. Right now, I have only compiled the library, and I will start to > have a look and play around. > My main idea was to have a look at tools to process OpenRaster to: > - maybe improve the support in Gimp. > - add a support in Blender to import OpenRaster files into the video > editor (like for instance when Adobe users import a PSD file into > AfterEffect). I'd love to see OpenRaster support in Blender! And contributions to the GIMP support is of course always welcome.
> Instead of doing all in Python, In could make a Python wrapper to > libora, and use it in both Gimp and Blender (as both accept Python > plugins). > But I am still studying the possibilities. If OpenRaster happens to be > too much of a pain, I may want to work directly on xcf files. Working with XCF files is not likely to be less pain than OpenRaster ;) > Another possibility is to not bother about trying to connect these, > and just have a Gimp plugin generate all my frames as png images from > my layers. This last solution is actually the easiest to do. That may > be my way to go. > Simply as someone who likes good design, I know that OpenRaster is (on > the principle) the way to go for interoperability. > > Basically it will all depend in the end on a compromise between the > "principles" and the easiness (= not wasting all my time when I > already have a valid solution). > Yeah, sometimes quick and simple does it just fine. >>> Also is the standards still evolving? >>> I would personally be interested into an animation extension. I see >>> there has been a "proposal" of just a few approximative lines. In the >>> context of our project, I would be happy to discuss it, extend this >>> and add a support to libora. >> Yes, some things were agreed on this year, so it is still in >> development. I don't expect any changes to the base standard at this >> point, but the things that noone has implemented yet may still change, >> and additions are of couse possible. Sadly it is not so easy from the >> spec which aspects has been widely implemented and agreed on and which >> are still a bit in the air. >> > > In the agreed things/discussion, is there anything about animation? > Because the "spec" I see is just a few bullet points of random ideas > thrown around: > http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/OpenRaster/Draft/Animation > There is not really any spec yet. Or maybe I am not looking in the > right place. Is there a real document elsewhere? > Also from having seen the stuff in Photoshop for animation, which was > more like an awful hack and sucked, I can say I don't agree with these > bullet points already. Noone has implemented the animation ideas as far as I know. I think most of the things there came from one guy. Please add your comments/opinions! -- Jon Nordby - www.jonnor.com _______________________________________________ CREATE mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create
