[Bf-vfx] Tomato camera sensor changes

[François T.]

and if I learned something in that community is that yes we do things for
all the users. advanced and less advanced.
So you can do like max, not having the param at all as I recall. Or like in
Maya, having all the param you can imagine of the one under the other and
passing 20 minutes everytime to find your only param you are changing once
in the while.
which btw ends up at some point with the same issue in Blender which we can
see in the property panel in 3d view, and that my friends is what I call a
bad design. Why did it happen ? because at some point every body wanted his
feature to show up !?
So you dont have to tell me how important those params are (I'm doing
matchmove for god sake :), and I was probably the first one to request all
the param to Sergey to be back), but while we know things about cameras,
Sergey knows a thing or two about UI, so if he thinks that having all those
param could be tricky to implement and need some time for it to avoid Yet
another messy property panel, so be it !
This is not Autodesk people, we take time and we try to make everybody
happy!!!! noobs & pros :)


cheers,

F.

2011/8/19 François T. <francoistarlier at gmail.com>

> Troy & Ejner ... I know that and I think I was agreeing with you guys at
> some point no ? I also understand the design of wanting to keep a UI clean
> and clear and do not show thousand of params at the same time which most
> people would not use on every day basis and not other complicated the stuff
> for them as well.
> Thats also part of design Troy :) and that where Sergey want to take time
> to think of, and I think its a good thing
>
> you angry people !
>
> :)
>
> F
>
> 2011/8/18 Ejner Fergo <ejnersan at gmail.com>
>
>> Hi François,
>>
>> >> I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean? "All the rest parameters"
>> >> in the camera settings is sensor dimensions (width/height). What is so
>> >> confusing about that? It's rather simple really, so what needs deeper
>> >> thought?
>> >
>> > its easy to understand when you know what you are talking about, but for
>> > most user, filmback or sensor size... well first they don't even know
>> that
>> > param exists and if so, you can do a poll I pretty sure most of them
>> won't
>> > know what it does affect.
>> > But I agree with you, it is not a reason to hide it entirely. Sergey is
>> just
>> > looking for a nice way to put it so it doesn't get to confusing for
>> people
>> > who don't use it much. Talk to many 3DS Max or other 3D packages user
>> > (beside maya) about filmgate and you'll see what I mean ;)
>>
>> Troy answered this best. If Blender should accommodate most users, we
>> could remove 80% of all settings. But this is a non issue, since most
>> users will not be affected by having both sensor dimensions available
>> (they use the default Blender preset - all is as before). Just because
>> the settings are there doesn't mean users have to learn/use it! And
>> even if many 3DS Max and others don't know what a filmgate is, these
>> apps still support it. Having both X and Y dimensions is not
>> confusing, it's the correct way.
>>
>> >> The vertical FOV, as you know, is defined by the sensor height, so we
>> >> need to input this. Preferably the actual dimension as before, or with
>> >> a device aspect.
>> >
>> > yeah but the heigh can be guessed by the width and the pixel ratio,
>> that's
>> > what he meant by having params working together.
>> > No matter if you change one or another it will always affect the others.
>> > width, height, image ratio, pixel ratio
>>
>> Image resolution and render resolution are two different things. To
>> get the correct camera VFOV we need either the sensor height or device
>> aspect (sorry to repeat myself). That means an extra setting is needed
>> anyway.
>>
>> >> Why have the vertical FOV as a read-only property? Are importers not
>> >> as important (no pun..) as exporters? The Channel file format uses the
>> >> vertical FOV, so this should be able to be written to. The FBX format
>> >> also uses the vertical FOV both during export and import, so having
>> >> this as a read-only property is not so helpful.
>> >
>> > I agree with that :)
>>
>> Cool :)
>>
>> All in all I just don't understand why we can't just use the sensor
>> patch as it was. The "confusing" part is a non-issue IMHO.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Ejner
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-vfx mailing list
>> Bf-vfx at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-vfx
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ____________________
> François Tarlier
> www.francois-tarlier.com
> www.linkedin.com/in/francoistarlier
>



-- 
____________________
François Tarlier
www.francois-tarlier.com
www.linkedin.com/in/francoistarlier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-vfx/attachments/20110819/cd6e0718/attachment.htm