[Bf-vfx] Plane Tracking naming

[Keir Mierle]

I will make a proposal but it won't be today; I have other fires to deal
with.


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Ton Roosendaal <ton at blender.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> All feedback is welcome, but let's not make it too complex. We do have a
> procedure in place for how to solve issues like this.
>
> Proposing naming of features is really a privilege of the developer first,
> but it should be agreed on by the module team (if there's a debate). If
> there's still no consensus we can ask related teams to decide (UI team) or
> the bf-admins in the end.
>
> So - I suggest to have Keir and Sergey propose and Sebastian and Sean
> agree with it. If they are all happy discussion can be closed.
>
> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Doc/Process/Module_Owners
>
> -Ton-
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Ton Roosendaal  -  ton at blender.org   -   www.blender.org
> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute
> Entrepotdok 57A  -  1018AD Amsterdam  -  The Netherlands
>
>
>
> On 13 Aug, 2013, at 19:04, Sergey Sharybin wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:34 PM, David Jeske <davidj at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Sergey Sharybin <sergey.vfx at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I do not happy with calling it "corner pin" because it's not  corner pin
> at all. You could (and probably even should) use more than 4 point tracks
> to make plane estimation much more accurate. Also, point tracks have no
> relation with corners at all: you could track points which are not corners
> of your plane (we showed this in our video).
> >
> > The feature you are calling "plane track" appears *exactly* like corner
> pinning in Mocha and After Effects. The "corners" referred to in the name
> "corner track" or "corner perspective pin" are the corners of your "plane"
> not the trackers themselves.
> >
> >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRpHgVFPqqk&feature=player_detailpage&t=465
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY4wwZFD5-c
> >
> > So is it a question like "let's call feature XXX exactly the same as
> it's called in software YYY"?
> >
> > The reason it's not called planar-tracking is that it's not 3d, it's a
> 2d affine image transformation.
> >
> > It's not affine, it's homography if it makes sense.
> >
> > Why do you call it a "plane"? As far as I can see, it's not a 3d-plane,
> but a 2d-affine compositing surface distorted in camera-space.
> >
> > because it's a plane. You could think of it as a real non-concave plane
> being warped by a homography estimated from point tracks. Which is like if
> you watch on a viewplane on which that plane is being projected.
> >
> >
> > Another usage of plane track might be constraining point tracks to
> belong to this plane while tracking them. Which means we might support
> other-way-around usecase: you create point tracks, you create plane out of
> them, and then starts tracking this point tracks taking plane constraint
> into account.
> >
> > At that point, the track would be for a 3d-plane, and it would be
> appropriate to call it a planar-track.
> >
> > That wouldn't be 3d, that'd still be based on homography estimation and
> making so tracks fits this homography in a best way (well, difficult to
> explain this in text, whiteboard would be much easier). At this point i
> couldn't see why or how we'll reconstruct 3D from point tacks in that case.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > With best regards, Sergey Sharybin
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bf-vfx mailing list
> > Bf-vfx at blender.org
> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-vfx
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-vfx mailing list
> Bf-vfx at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-vfx
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-vfx/attachments/20130813/035db46f/attachment.htm