[Bf-committers] Re: Re: [Bf-blender-cvs] Re: CVS commit: blender/source/blender/blenkernel BKE_node.h blender/source/blender/blenkernel/intern ipo.c node.c node_composite.c blender/source/blender/makesdna DNA_camera_types.h DNA_node_types.h blender/source/blender/render

[Alfredo de Greef]

--- GSR <gsr.b3d at infernal-iceberg.com> wrote:
> Those are the cases in which having something beyond
> plain blur really
> matters. The linked image is from a demo page of a
> real DSLR.
>
http://www.pentax.co.uk/images/products/photo/uk/K10D/Image%204.JPG
> 
> In another mail I just sent you can find more links
> with more
> discussions and demo images in which the distortions
> show the
> differences. Cameras are not perfect, and that is
> what people expect
> to believe in the image.

I know, simulating general camera effects is what a
lot of my other postpro code was about (in case you
don't know, this dof node was originally intended for
the orange project along with a whole set of other
postprocessing effects, but was never used because of
hardware problems and my computer dying earlier this
year).
Of course, most of what you say above would be simple
enough to do by allowing a general image to be used as
the blur mask. And I could add that back in if you
really want it that much. But it would be really slow,
and as I said before, general uniform blur/convolution
is then better done by a fft based node, much faster
as well (except for small blur sizes). This was also
part of the other postprocessing tools btw.

Anyway, it is just a simple postprocessing effect, not
a fullblown physical simulation of a real camera.
It tries to do what it says on the package and nothing
more. Of course the interpretation of 'what it says on
the package' is something else.

> Or you can use mouse to get the focus depth. ;]
> Click in any render
> and look for the printed Z value. I am not saying it
> has to be removed
> from 3D, just that override in node would be nice
> (faster workflow,
> does not depend in current camera).

Anyone can modify the code if they want to. So please
go ahead if you see ways to improve something.

There is still the possibility that purple will
surprise everybody and finally reveal his composit
node, and that probably will do more of what you would
like to see, if only because he now has a chance to
take note of all these complaints and wishes and
improve on it.

> The notes mention blured things nearer than the in
> focus part, for
> which you have to separate in two passes and combine
> later, so
> foreground can become "invisible". If that is what
> you mean, the
> bright spot was far away, and I do not care so much
> about the front
> sphere.

I was refering to the comments in the description of
the 'BThreshold' parameter.
Try putting a floor below or a cube around the
spheres, you might be surprised to see a possibly
quite significant difference...
It is more about the distance difference in the
blurred transitions of the spheres and the distant
background.

Alfredo

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com