[Bf-committers] Geometry in Compositor or Quadrangulation???

[Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com]

Ok here's the ultimate sucky mockup for a 2D masking environment. I
focuses on a getting the basics of masking well done. leaving better
integration with 3D scene for later.

http://www.zanqdo.com/tmp/MockUpMask.png

Daniel Salazar
3Developer.com



On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com
<zanqdo at gmail.com> wrote:
> after a chat with Matt we agreed that there are two areas to take care
> now or eventually:
>
> 1- masking tools: simple, independant from 3D view, interactive,
> probably work inside *image editor*. rotobezier, power windows, etc go
> here
>
> 2- integration of 3D scene: this should be done by making a better
> *blender internal*. the renderer should handle non obstructive
> rendering of custom jobs, like it does with material preview renders.
> It should handle different cameras or resolution (to be able to render
> outside of main view's screenspace) and it should be able to render
> simple geometry like shadeless objects or normals as fast as possible.
> This is actually simmilar to an old design of mine that uses the 3D
> view instead of the image editor but still focuses on tweaking Blender
> Internal to be more flexible
>
> https://docs0.google.com/drawings/edit?id=1VLs3SkOjn9TVYtet0KvNTVLWvcgaH4gVYIUrMOMp_xo&authkey=CIK37ecL&hl=en
>
> what Pete is doing is probably a mix between the two and that's
> probably a bad idea :s
>
> cheers!
>
> Daniel Salazar
> 3Developer.com
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com
> <zanqdo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> to elaborate the problems with everything that has to be with scene
>> data and compositing together are speed/interactivity and integration.
>> what do you suggest?
>>
>> Daniel Salazar
>> 3Developer.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com
>> <zanqdo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> What do you suggest? (not focusing on the pure topic of masking)
>>>
>>> Daniel Salazar
>>> 3Developer.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Matt Ebb <matt at mke3.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com
>>>> <zanqdo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Indeed! :) *but!* there are other uses for having a geometry node in
>>>>> the compositor like bringing geometry normals, vectors, alphas and
>>>>> what not and all interactive (no need for regular render). It's what
>>>>> other compositors do to integrate the 3D view with the compositor. We
>>>>> can see this as a step of integration. What do you think Matt?
>>>>
>>>> I think it's a bad idea. Blender already has a renderer and that's
>>>> what it's for. Duplicating code to make an entirely separate renderer
>>>> that's only used in the comp would end up in a world of
>>>> overcomplicated pain. If there are problems with the workflow of
>>>> rendering elements to be used in comp, then that should be worked on
>>>> itself, I don't think the solution is to ignore it and build an
>>>> entirely separate thing.
>>>>
>>>> But that's all putting the cart way before the horse anyway, when so
>>>> much of blender's compositor is still at quite a basic level for 2d
>>>> manipulations.
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>>>
>>>
>>
>