The main principle I teach is to understand the tool/ methodologies so that the
user can make an intelligent decision based on a full understanding.
A list of do's and dont's will always fall foul of exceptions and in the end
only leads to parrot fashion learning.
An example 'never composite an unpremultiplied image' or 'only composite a
premultiplied image' *which ever it was...
well
1) you can - a keymix expects an unpremultiplied image. The matte tool is there
for that purpose too.
Why not anyway? what would be the tell tale signs of compositing an image with
premult set wrong? (light edges, dark edges etc..., some of which aren't even
premult issues anyway)
What if you are applying any filtering to an image (translate of 0.5 pixels for
example, let alone blur etc...), what would happen if this wasn't premultiplied?
What happens if you colour correct a premultiplied image? What would you look
out for?
"Always check your edges for premult artifacts" would be the only guide I would
suggest here. The artifacts will always depend on a number of mistakes, subtle
or blatant and instilling the need to check this the important thing. Fixing
the cause(s) requires an understanding of why.
'Never use explicit paths in read nodes', simply depends on your setup and
pipeline. A well set up pipeline/ network and this shouldn't be an issue
(hasn't been for me in 15 years)
etc...
Howard
>________________________________
> From: Martin <jackyoungbl...@mac.com>
>To: Nuke user discussion <nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk>
>Cc: Howard Jones <mrhowardjo...@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Friday, 23 December 2011, 5:41
>Subject: Re: [Nuke-users] New Nuke training Wiki
>
>
>Thanks for the feedback guys.
>
>
>I agree with Howard. Some points there are so simplistic that can be
>misleading or simply plain wrong depending on how you look at them.
>
>
>My problem is that Nuke is very forgiving of bad practice and my students
>(undergrads) can mistake this for a blanket permission to do anything they
>like. When one is correcting for the 100th time in a week a badly set format
>in Project Settings, then one looses the desire to frame ones advice in
>negotiable terms.
>
>
>However, I see your point. I have removed some of the points, softened my line
>on others and placed the page within a broader context as a sub-page in the
>'Script Evaluation' page.
>
>
>http://opticalenquiry.com/nuke/index.php?title=Script_Evaluation
>
>
>It is still a bit rough but I hope to have it in acceptable form by the start
>of the semester.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 23-Dec-2011, at 3:37 AM, Diogo Girondi wrote:
>
>I agree with Howard. Some points there are so simplistic that can be
>misleading or simply plain wrong depending on how you look at them.
>>
>>
>>diogo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Howard Jones <mrhowardjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Maybe - I'd scrap your dont's - far too simplistic
>>>
>>>
>>>Howard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>________________________________
>>>> From: Jd Flame <jdyfl...@gmail.com>
>>>>To: Nuke user discussion <nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk>
>>>>Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011, 15:47
>>>>Subject: Re: [Nuke-users] New Nuke training Wiki
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is great!!!
>>>>
>>>>Thank you Martin for sharing all this information with us.
>>>>
>>>>JD
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>On Dec 20, 2011, at 12:13 AM, Martin <jackyoungbl...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Nuke mailing list denizens,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have just finished the first working draft of a Wiki dedicated to Nuke
>>>>> learning. It was made to accompany my class on Digital Compositing, here
>>>>> in Singapore.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://opticalenquiry.com/nuke/
>>>>>
>>>>> The philosophy of this Wiki is to augment hands on classroom teaching (I
>>>>> have tried to illustrate points with code snippets as well as screen
>>>>> shots). I have paid particular attention to points that I know confuse
>>>>> the newbie and have left
out details that I think are best covered by the user guide.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any feedback greatly welcome. It is still a bit thin on screen shots and
>>>>> rampant with typos. It might also contain inaccuracies as I am a bit of a
>>>>> Nuke newbie myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will be happy to accommodate anyone interested in having editing
>>>>> privileges.
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Nuke-users mailing list
>>>>> Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
>>>>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Nuke-users mailing list
>>>>Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
>>>>http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Nuke-users mailing list
>>>Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
>>>http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
>>>
>>
_______________________________________________
>>Nuke-users mailing list
>>Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
>>http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
