[Bf-committers] Masks are not only for Mattes

[Bassam Kurdali]

This is maybe a ridiculous suggestion: feel free to shoot it down:

- we currently have one 3D editor. Here we do all our 3d tasks,
modelling, animation, rigging, curves, meshes, etc. We can select and
manipulate many different types of 3d objects, in different ways.

-we can do *much less* things in 2d (blender is after all a 3d program).
Yet we have multiple specialized windows for 2d editing: UV editor,
movie clip editor. (arguably the sequence editor is some sort of 2d
nla). 

So maybe, we are making 2d editing too compartmentalized; and we should
have 1 2d editor where you can do any 2d tasks? or is this silly?

I'm not actually pushing for this, it is only an observation/idea.

On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 13:59 -0300, Guillermo Espertino (Gez) wrote:
> El 05/06/12 13:23, Antony Riakiotakis escribió:
> > The UV editor is suited for UV editing and reviewing what parts of the
> > image go to what parts of the mesh. The UV editor can be seen as an
> > image viewer/painter, but, in the end it is not a swiss knife of
> > functionality either. Its primary intended for modifying the data
> > themselves while the track editor and compositor can be seen as
> > operating -based- on the data. IMO, this discussion should not be
> > targeted at the uv editor but to a better interoperability between
> > compositor/tracker.
> Ok, maybe I didn't express myself with enough clarity. I meant that we 
> have the composite viewer in one place and the tracking/masking tools in 
> another.
> Since viewers and image analysis tools live currently in the UV/Image 
> editor, I proposed to take masking and tracking there, but maybe it's 
> better to have a specialized viewer window (perhaps the same clip 
> window) and take the viewer and image analysis tools from the UV/Image 
> editor to the clip editor window.
> The point is having masking and tracking also available for composites, 
> not just for clips. And having both operations working as nodes instead 
> of separated tools would be more flexible because you could feed those 
> tools with both, footage and (pre)composites.
> 
> Gez
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers