[Bf-committers] Better approaches to Defocus?

[michael williamson]

In general I agree, I love the group node stuff, but when both node 
types are sortof related and need the zbuffer as input and essentially 
destroy it making it unusable for the other it seems to make a lot of 
sense to combine in this case.

You could have 3 separate nodes... dof, vector blur and both... or it 
could be a single node with 3 modes... it needn't be cluttered or have 
any extra overhead for the unused stuff...

Dof and motion blur are extremely common things to use together the user 
shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get them to play nice...

I guess there's an argument for shipping a library of node groups too... 
but that's another topic.

On 28/06/11 20:02, François T. wrote:
> yeah and if you only need one of them, you get an other complicated node for
> nothing. With nice grouping system and precomp, and better UI as well, you
> can manage a clean not too complicated node setup.
> I believe the new group system is a step in that direction, still need a bit
> more work though but since it is much more customizable, you can hide some
> crazy setup and just bring the needed value at the top of your node. I think
> that's the spirit rather than having one big node which does everything and
> nothing at the same time
>
> just my opinion though
>
> F
>
>
> 2011/6/28 michael williamson<michaelw at cowtoolsmedia.co.uk>
>
>> On 28/06/11 17:41, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com wrote:
>>> glitches, it's all glitches! how i'd love some good dof and vblur nodes:)
>>>
>>> Daniel Salazar
>>> 3Developer.com
>>>
>> Even better would be a unified DOF/Vblur node so you can have both
>> together without overcomplicating teh node setups! Currently they're
>> pretty incompatible!
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>
>
>