[Bf-vfx] VFX related stuff that I think could be improved

[Francesco Paglia]

some comment inlined:


> 2. Canvas:
> Some users love backdrop. I hate it. For me canvas is a separate window.
> Let it be the UV image editor, I don't care. I believe I'll hear different
> opinions here.
>

I don't care of backdrop and most of time I just leave it off but I think
many people do use it because they perceive a quick visual relation between
the node editing and the on screen feedback. I believe that if node editing
is moved away from the node itself the backdrop will lose its value as well.
Let me say moving controls outside the node will just improve compositing
user experience with a faster and more efficient workflow.

Let me add that I perfectly agree in the rationalization of image viewer...
there are too many, each of which specialized for a special purpose...


> Anyway:
> a) Ctrl-Shift-click should automatically switch UV image editor to "Viewer
> Node".
>

That's a nice thought! +1



> b) Transform controls:
> This should simply be easy. I personally don't see the need for all those
> "Translate", "Rotate" etc nodes. IMHO Anchor Point, Position, Rotation and
> Scale should just be the properties of every node. "Opacity" would also be
> nice.
> I make the node active, hover the mouse over "canvas", hit "R" and rotate.
> just like objects in 3D View. Hit "S" and scale. Just imagine: Select,
> hover, "SXX", move a bit, click, done. Image gets resized along "local" X
> just a bit. How much? As much as needed. You simply watch what you are
> doing and do it.
> Additional gizmos in canvas would also be nice. Just click the gizmo and
> move the image, rotate or scale, do it with Ctrl or whatever other key to
> constrain proportions… I'm in heaven :-)
> Those gizmos could control the active node's output. Just that simple.
> I should also be able to enter numeric values of those properties in
> Properties panel of the node.
> … and pleeeeeeeeease give us the Anchor Point. It's important to be able
> to rotate or scale around different point than the center of the image.
>

A node based compositor doesn't necessary work on image offset/rotation
that's why a transform node is useful. The way AE works it's quite
different from the node base approach.
Personally I find much more useful to get to the right result and once I
need a transform node I just add it in the right place of my chain... How
many times people create a precomposition of a precomposition of a
composition that at the end becomes part of another composition just
because is faster than connect the transformation of many layers via
scripts or because the timeline is getting too full of layers..
In my opinion having nodes that explicitly tell me what they do is a much
cleaner workflow.
Of course I agree on the rationalization of the nodes: a single transform
node with all the proprieties inside could be enough and the anchor point
must be one of them!

Opacity is a kind of property that is related to color not offset so it has
to be part of another node (a color correction node or an opacity node
could fit perfectly)


>
> 3. Masks:
> Well… I simply don't know how on earth one can effectively use those crazy
> controls. It takes ages to draw simple shapes. Bezier curves with easy
> control of handles right after placing a point is the only option IMHO.
> Sorry for mentioning After Effects once again, but there I simply click and
> the point gets added. Then without releasing the mouse I drag and the
> handle gets defined. It's intuitive and easy. You don't think, you just
> draw.
> In my opinion the right place for adding masks should just be the
> compositor window.
> Shift-A, add mask, move the mouse over canvas and do the magic.
> Select more than one mask nodes and you can control them simultaneously.
> How about that?
>

I didn't understand what you mean with "the right place for adding masks
should just be the compositor window" but I agree that the workflow can be
simplified and even AE is easier that blender I think other solution are
even better..... but it's my opinion! :)


>
> 4. Color display when alpha different than 1.0:
> I don't know why it's done this way. Every pixel has R, G, B and A values.
> Why when I disable alpha display I can't see the colors as they are? In
> order to see the real values (and look) of the image in semi-transparent or
> transparent areas I have to do all the premultiply, unpremultiply,
> unprepremutipremultidivide-setalpha-unsetalpha magic just to see the
> colors. It drives me crazy. I'd simply want to see the RGB values of
> transparent pixels. It used to be this way some ages ago. Why did it change?
>

Premultiply / unpremultiply nodes are very important in general but i agree
that a "display color only" should avoid (or at list could if it can be
treated as an option) the alpha multiplication since the meaning of color
only should be exactly this.



>
> 5. Several new "distortion" nodes would be a great help. Something like:
> "Corner Pin", "Bezier Warp", "Mesh Warp", "Spherize" etc. plus "Movie
> Distorsion" where I could simply enter the values without having any movie
> clip. Why do I need this? I would simply like to distort some image using
> predefined distortion values.
>
> I didn't get this ... Are you saying that Bezier Warp or mesh warp aren't
useful because a simple distort node would be enough?



> 6. Overscan: Well… What more can I say. It's crutial to be able to render
> larger image just to crop it after distortion. I have my workaround for
> this, but having a simple option in render settings would be great.
>
>
>
Let me add an extra thought, I think the compositor should not replicate
the power of animating and editing stuff of the 3D side of the work where
we can animate every single layer.
IMHO it should be not so strictly related to the renderlayer system and it
should be used to make  all the 2D image process we need.
It should be possible to create as many node tree as we want and add them
as 2d image input on every 3d Object (of course we should be able to link a
node tree to the final render output as well), this will solve dozen of
limitation we have now and will avoid the need of using many transform node
;)

Ciao
Francesco

-- 
Francesco Paglia
Vfx and Production Supervisor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-vfx/attachments/20130907/3be9dfda/attachment.htm