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

[pete larabell]

If this is ok with blender peeps that I implement something like
this... I can start work on it.

Is there any major reasons I *shouldn't* do something similar to that?

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com
<zanqdo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>