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

[Francesco Paglia]

2013/9/8 Bartek Skorupa (priv) <bartekskorupa at bartekskorupa.com>

> Transform controls:
> After a second thought I'd agree that having separate node(s) for
> transformations is ok and yes, it makes the chain clearer.
> However I still don't see anything wrong in ability to make those
> transformations directly in canvas having instant response to the performed
> action.
>

Did I say to avoid control on canvas?... HOPE NO" :) I'm with you on this!


> If too much computing power is needed to render whole image that quickly,
> no problem: outline of the image could be drawn and render could go after
> finishing transformations. I mean something like "adaptive resolution" or
> so. Render fast what you can in "real time" even if in some cases it's
> limited to showing just outlines and then render the rest.
>
> I also agree with the approach to opacity. That's right. It's not a
> transform property, so it should be separated from transformations
> themselves. In such case I'd say that it's not needed. Factors and alpha
> controls that we have right now are enough to do anything we need.
>
> I didn't understand what you mean with "the right place for adding masks
> should just be the compositor window"
>
> I mean this:
> Think about the moment when you decide that you need the mask. It's during
> compositing, right? I realize that masking is needed, so I want to add
> mask. The first thing that comes to my mind intuitively is that I need to
> add node for this and then control its properties, i.e. the shape of the
> mask,
> So shift-A, mask (being all the time in compositing window/panel) and my
> canvas is automatically ready for creating this mask.
> When I want to modify the mask I simply select the proper node and modify
> the mask defined by this node.
> If I want to have new mask that is just a bit different than the existing
> one, I duplicate the node representing this mask and automatically have its
> copy.
> I hope I made myself a bit clearer, but if not, please let me know, I'll
> try to explain it differently.
>
> Now you've been very clear and I think that simplify the work is a great
UX and UI advancement


> 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?
>
> No. I mean that bezier or mesh warp are needed AND different approach to
> "movie distortion" node would be nice as well.
> In this one paragraph I mentioned two different matters:
> 1. It would be great to have warping/reshaping possibilities.
> 2. When talking about "movie distortion" it should be possible to apply
>  it without having any movie clip in your file. If I have a movie clip I
> can use it, but if I don't, I'd like to be able to manually enter K1, K2
> and K3 values in the node properties themselves.
> Lens distortion node gives slightly different results than movie
> distortion node, so I'd like to have them both, but a bit better control
> over movie distortion.
>

Yeah, lens distortion has much more an "artistic purpose" than the movie
distortion.


-- 
Francesco Paglia
Vfx and Production Supervisor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-vfx/attachments/20130910/5e424b21/attachment.htm