Ok here's the ultimate sucky mockup for a 2D masking environment. I focuses on a getting the basics of masking well done. leaving better integration with 3D scene for later.
http://www.zanqdo.com/tmp/MockUpMask.png Daniel Salazar 3Developer.com On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com <zan...@gmail.com> wrote: > after a chat with Matt we agreed that there are two areas to take care > now or eventually: > > 1- masking tools: simple, independant from 3D view, interactive, > probably work inside *image editor*. rotobezier, power windows, etc go > here > > 2- integration of 3D scene: this should be done by making a better > *blender internal*. the renderer should handle non obstructive > rendering of custom jobs, like it does with material preview renders. > It should handle different cameras or resolution (to be able to render > outside of main view's screenspace) and it should be able to render > simple geometry like shadeless objects or normals as fast as possible. > This is actually simmilar to an old design of mine that uses the 3D > view instead of the image editor but still focuses on tweaking Blender > Internal to be more flexible > > https://docs0.google.com/drawings/edit?id=1VLs3SkOjn9TVYtet0KvNTVLWvcgaH4gVYIUrMOMp_xo&authkey=CIK37ecL&hl=en > > what Pete is doing is probably a mix between the two and that's > probably a bad idea :s > > cheers! > > Daniel Salazar > 3Developer.com > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com > <zan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> to elaborate the problems with everything that has to be with scene >> data and compositing together are speed/interactivity and integration. >> what do you suggest? >> >> Daniel Salazar >> 3Developer.com >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com >> <zan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> What do you suggest? (not focusing on the pure topic of masking) >>> >>> Daniel Salazar >>> 3Developer.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Matt Ebb <m...@mke3.net> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com >>>> <zan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Indeed! :) *but!* there are other uses for having a geometry node in >>>>> the compositor like bringing geometry normals, vectors, alphas and >>>>> what not and all interactive (no need for regular render). It's what >>>>> other compositors do to integrate the 3D view with the compositor. We >>>>> can see this as a step of integration. What do you think Matt? >>>> >>>> I think it's a bad idea. Blender already has a renderer and that's >>>> what it's for. Duplicating code to make an entirely separate renderer >>>> that's only used in the comp would end up in a world of >>>> overcomplicated pain. If there are problems with the workflow of >>>> rendering elements to be used in comp, then that should be worked on >>>> itself, I don't think the solution is to ignore it and build an >>>> entirely separate thing. >>>> >>>> But that's all putting the cart way before the horse anyway, when so >>>> much of blender's compositor is still at quite a basic level for 2d >>>> manipulations. >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Bf-committers mailing list >>>> Bf-committers@blender.org >>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >>>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers