[Bf-committers] Stereoscopy Implementation Proposal
Brecht Van Lommel
brechtvanlommel at pandora.be
Sat Apr 6 13:55:20 CEST 2013
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Ton Roosendaal <ton at blender.org> wrote:
> I would be very careful storing UI assumptions in data.
> The current system already has layer names and pass names. The 'view' names can be defined in the UI, and how it's all stored and retrieved internally software can handle transparently. That way you don't regret design decisions when things change internally after all.
Personally I think explicit views > layers > passes (or layers > views
> passes) storage is better. My guess is that the way it's stored in
EXR files is for compatibility / simplicity. EXR also has no concept
of renderlayers and only stores them by name, yet we do have separate
data structures for them in Blender. So why are views different?
Maybe it requires a few extra code changes but I think the final code
will be more clear.
> Another good trick is to look at code design in a way "what would break if we remove the feature". If things can get added and removed without bad versioning, you're much safer for future.
> Forcing the render result to always store views is in this category. "Views" are optional, and can best stay that way - if possible.
RenderResult is also not stored in files, so I don't think we need to
worry about versioning. Maybe there's a few places in the UI like the
image editor or some compositing node where you want to specify a
view, but I think in that case you want to have the view as a separate
setting from the pass anyway?
So as far as I can tell, nothing would break if we remove this feature?
More information about the Bf-committers