[Bf-vfx] Improving the 2D stabilization tool :: Updated against 2.77a

[Sean Kennedy]

Okay, upon further review it does indeed seem to be working. Michael P showed me what I was doing wrong, and while there is still a small issue, this stabilizing definitely does show promise. Very nice!


I made a small quick demo video again showing the small issue I'm still noticing.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2vm2ytbqq0e656/stabilizer_problems_02.mp4?dl=0



Even with that problem, though, this is looking great, and I'm all for pushing the review ahead!


Sean


________________________________
From: bf-vfx-bounces at blender.org <bf-vfx-bounces at blender.org> on behalf of Sean Kennedy <mack_dadd2 at hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2016 9:01 PM
To: Blender motion tracking & VFX
Subject: Re: [Bf-vfx] Improving the 2D stabilization tool :: Updated against 2.77a

Wow, I hope you get better! Take care of yourself first, that's always most important.

In regards to the tracking, to me, with the ways I use stabilizing in my daily work, this isn't really usable, because it doesn't actually stabilize the footage. It doesn't remove all position, rotation, and scale from the footage, as it typically should. At least in the daily workflow of a visual effects artist. With this current functionality, I'm not sure I see a way it could be applied in a useful manner. I am open to suggestion, though. Can you maybe give a little video demo of how you envision these features in their current form to be usable?

Get better first though! ??

Sean

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 4, 2016, at 5:05 PM, Ichthyostega <prg at ichthyostega.de> wrote:
>
> m 11.06.2016 um 07:49 schrieb Sean Kennedy:
>> I finally got a chance to play around with the stabilizer rework today, and
>> while it looks really promising, I was having an issue where it wasn't
>> working correctly. I made a video to demonstrate.
>
> Hello Sean, and the others,
>
> right now I am in the Hospital, had to undergo surgery. On my way to the better
> now, but that might explain my silence meanwhile.
>
> As I've pointed out in my other response, I am aware of the behaviour you
> observed. It is not correct in some cases, but, as I wrote, I coose this
> workaround, because this seemed the compromise with the least footprint at the
> moment, i.e. it required only minimal API change.
>
> And the goal is, to get the review ahead, isn't it?
>
>
> So the main question is, shall we treat that as defect, meaning, that I should
> extend the contents of my patch, including the then necessary changes to
> compositing nodes, or shall we treat this as an incremental solution and proceed
> with the formal review process, aiming for inclusion? Of course I am committed
> to do what is necessary..
>
>
> Hermann
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-vfx mailing list
> Bf-vfx at blender.org
> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-vfx
Bf-vfx Info Page - Blender<https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-vfx>
lists.blender.org
Public feedback list to support the developers who work on integrating motion tracking in Blender, and for future work on related targets for VFX in Blender.



_______________________________________________
Bf-vfx mailing list
Bf-vfx at blender.org
https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-vfx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-vfx/attachments/20160707/814ec5b4/attachment.htm