[Bf-committers] Seminar on Blender
Hi guys, I'm in the middle of preparing a paperwork to organize a seminar on Content Creation in Malaysia. I've suggested to the organizer to have a technical presentation using Blender tools, much like Autodesk's Master/expert series. The organizer so far seems to be interested in the idea. I might have a chance to invite several speakers from Blender community to talk in-depth about Blender's technology in production environment. The categories covered can be in any of the creative content's main pipelines (modeling, rigging, rendering, scripting, effects/particles/simulations). I think this would be a good exposure about Blender's real capabilities to the participants (which will be attended by most of the local productions in Malaysia). Truly appreciate it if anyone can give me a feedback on this, or perhaps some suggestions if there's anyone that I should contact to move this idea forward? Thanks. Best Regards, Faizol Abd. Halim Malaysia ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] The final step that Blender needs to take in order to become fundamentally perfect
XSI's ICE is the use of a customizable node which can be compared to the VOP node of Houdini, although ICE is even easier to use than VOP (which at times can be more complicated). Houdini uses a more advanced network of nodes which is integrated throughout the application, resulting in it being more difficult to learn and use but ultimately more powerful. Look for example at what this person has done (it shows the power of Houdini quite well): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOLhnwllpgs . Houdini is extremely powerful for things like visual effects and certain types of modelling (and animation). It's power, because of its advanced node-based procedural architecture, is still unexplored. It's simulation ablities are unmatched (only XSI's ICE can come close), and the ability for the user to make changes with real-time feedback that can only be made through an advanced node-based procedural method cannot be done through traditional non-procedural methods or easily done through unintuitive python scripts. Softimage's objective was to create a node-based environment that would be easier to use than Houdini and for some tasks almost as powerful. That is why ICE and Houdini are not the same thing, and should be seen as having different strengths and thus complementing each other. Textual programming was created because of the need to optimize programming code as well as possible per cpu clock without regards to readability, given the fact that cpu's were at the time inherently constrained in terms of performance - python and c look the same and are mostly the same in regards to intuitiveness. Visual programming is inherently more intuitive. The use of charts, diagrams, and graphs combined with some readable text is preferable to raw text. This is the basis of visual programming, the next step that presents a visual and interactive environment for the user, something that textual-based programming could never achieve and which is why is seen as not being as intuitive by the common user. Houdini has been stated many times as being able to save countless hours of programming by using its well thought-out nodes instead of textual-based programming (if we take into account the difference between the amounts of time needed to learn visual and textual-based programming, and slower than ideal usage of textual-based programming procedures given the lesser intuitiveness and more complicated nature, for the common user, of the textual approach). Studios use Houdini because it is more intuitive and also because in being more intuitive it is faster to set-up and use. However, Houdini is not exempt from criticism regarding intuitiveness. These are two good examples that I have found: POPS, this for me needs a re-write, I'd actually like to see more of a VOPS style system with multiple inputs/outputs on nodes, I guess after using VOPS and softimage ICE, this seems like a friendlier way of constructing a complex particle system. Some attention to VOPs perhaps? I really believe that VOPs are very powerful, but could we get some more functionalities as nodes? I really liked XSI ICE's user friendliness.. Also I kind of liked the fact that we could create and delete points from within the ICE network.. Something like this in Houdini could be very helpful (AFAIK using VEX/VOPs we can't create or delete data inside VOP Networks.. Please correct me if I'm wrong) ICE is the most intuitive and useful for some tasks. Houdini is used for when the user needs more control and power. Blender needs to excel in being able to create 3d animation as easily, as quickly, and as well as possible by combining non-procedural and procedural workflow as well as possible. This is therefore the next step that Blender needs to take after 2.6 2.6 will be released 2 and half years after it has been announced. 2.8 can take a similar amount of time. 2.6 was focused on restructuring and redesigning Blender and making it competitive against all other packages except Houdini. For 2.8, Blender needs to become competitive against Houdini by integrating a Houdini-like advanced node-based all-permeating procedural system (which allows for, and is not limited to, modelling, animation, rigging, and more), and also integrate a system like ICE. When this happens, Blender will have finally reached completion from a theoretical and fundamental point of view. What it will then be refining will be the integration of non-procedural and procedural workflow so that 3d animation may be created as easily, quickly, and as well as possible. Blender needs to also be multi-threaded and fully supportive of OpenCL programming - this will help speed its simulation abilities immensely. But the most important thing, as always, is to first implement the main functionalities, and then think about how to optimize and speed things up. This was posted in one thread that I was reading: The next release is supposed to be a major overhaul of Houdini's underpinnings, making everything
Re: [Bf-committers] Seminar on Blender
Hi Faizol, Usually, the organizer offers a stipend to cover the cost of airfare, hotel and expenses in relation to giving the presentation. How much are they offering (travel from US to Malaysia is expensive). --Roger Check out my website at www.rogerwickes.com for a good deal on my book and training course, as well as information about my latest activities. Use coupon Papasmurf for $15 off! From: Muhamad Faizol Abd. Halim faizol.blen...@gmail.com To: bf-committers@blender.org Sent: Fri, May 7, 2010 2:55:45 AM Subject: [Bf-committers] Seminar on Blender Hi guys, I'm in the middle of preparing a paperwork to organize a seminar on Content Creation in Malaysia. I've suggested to the organizer to have a technical presentation using Blender tools, much like Autodesk's Master/expert series. The organizer so far seems to be interested in the idea. I might have a chance to invite several speakers from Blender community to talk in-depth about Blender's technology in production environment. The categories covered can be in any of the creative content's main pipelines (modeling, rigging, rendering, scripting, effects/particles/simulations). I think this would be a good exposure about Blender's real capabilities to the participants (which will be attended by most of the local productions in Malaysia). Truly appreciate it if anyone can give me a feedback on this, or perhaps some suggestions if there's anyone that I should contact to move this idea forward? Thanks. Best Regards, Faizol Abd. Halim Malaysia ___ 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
Re: [Bf-committers] The final step that Blender needs to take in order to become fundamentally perfect
All of these things are basically on the horizon eventually, depending on need, developer resources, etc. Houdini-like geometry DOPs are something I want to do for bmesh, but at this point it's hard to tell when that can happen. Shader nodes (real ones, that compile to a real shader language) is also planned, but again no one knows when it'll happen. As for opencl, many of us are excited to start playing around with it :) Joe On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 1:32 PM, nautilus nautilus...@googlemail.com wrote: XSI's ICE is the use of a customizable node which can be compared to the VOP node of Houdini, although ICE is even easier to use than VOP (which at times can be more complicated). Houdini uses a more advanced network of nodes which is integrated throughout the application, resulting in it being more difficult to learn and use but ultimately more powerful. Look for example at what this person has done (it shows the power of Houdini quite well): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOLhnwllpgs . Houdini is extremely powerful for things like visual effects and certain types of modelling (and animation). It's power, because of its advanced node-based procedural architecture, is still unexplored. It's simulation ablities are unmatched (only XSI's ICE can come close), and the ability for the user to make changes with real-time feedback that can only be made through an advanced node-based procedural method cannot be done through traditional non-procedural methods or easily done through unintuitive python scripts. Softimage's objective was to create a node-based environment that would be easier to use than Houdini and for some tasks almost as powerful. That is why ICE and Houdini are not the same thing, and should be seen as having different strengths and thus complementing each other. Textual programming was created because of the need to optimize programming code as well as possible per cpu clock without regards to readability, given the fact that cpu's were at the time inherently constrained in terms of performance - python and c look the same and are mostly the same in regards to intuitiveness. Visual programming is inherently more intuitive. The use of charts, diagrams, and graphs combined with some readable text is preferable to raw text. This is the basis of visual programming, the next step that presents a visual and interactive environment for the user, something that textual-based programming could never achieve and which is why is seen as not being as intuitive by the common user. Houdini has been stated many times as being able to save countless hours of programming by using its well thought-out nodes instead of textual-based programming (if we take into account the difference between the amounts of time needed to learn visual and textual-based programming, and slower than ideal usage of textual-based programming procedures given the lesser intuitiveness and more complicated nature, for the common user, of the textual approach). Studios use Houdini because it is more intuitive and also because in being more intuitive it is faster to set-up and use. However, Houdini is not exempt from criticism regarding intuitiveness. These are two good examples that I have found: POPS, this for me needs a re-write, I'd actually like to see more of a VOPS style system with multiple inputs/outputs on nodes, I guess after using VOPS and softimage ICE, this seems like a friendlier way of constructing a complex particle system. Some attention to VOPs perhaps? I really believe that VOPs are very powerful, but could we get some more functionalities as nodes? I really liked XSI ICE's user friendliness.. Also I kind of liked the fact that we could create and delete points from within the ICE network.. Something like this in Houdini could be very helpful (AFAIK using VEX/VOPs we can't create or delete data inside VOP Networks.. Please correct me if I'm wrong) ICE is the most intuitive and useful for some tasks. Houdini is used for when the user needs more control and power. Blender needs to excel in being able to create 3d animation as easily, as quickly, and as well as possible by combining non-procedural and procedural workflow as well as possible. This is therefore the next step that Blender needs to take after 2.6 2.6 will be released 2 and half years after it has been announced. 2.8 can take a similar amount of time. 2.6 was focused on restructuring and redesigning Blender and making it competitive against all other packages except Houdini. For 2.8, Blender needs to become competitive against Houdini by integrating a Houdini-like advanced node-based all-permeating procedural system (which allows for, and is not limited to, modelling, animation, rigging, and more), and also integrate a system like ICE. When this happens, Blender will have finally reached completion from a theoretical and fundamental point of view. What it will then be refining will
Re: [Bf-committers] Seminar on Blender
Hi, Something that Autodesk always does is they record these seminars and sell disks with the video, resource files, and a PDF of notes and slides from the presentations. I don't know that this would help you, but if you could get organizers to agree to let you record the presentations and then afterwards you could sell the DVDs, splitting profit with the organizers, you could recoup some of the cost of the stipends you'd need to pay out to get people to Malaysia. Also it'd benefit the community at large as there are so few master classes on Blender, and some of the most useful knowledge on the software is esoteric. Although, I woudln't charge what Autodesk does. Some of their DVDs have had notoriously little usable information and cost upwards of $80 USD. ~ C On 2010-05-07, at 2:55 AM, Muhamad Faizol Abd. Halim wrote: Hi guys, I'm in the middle of preparing a paperwork to organize a seminar on Content Creation in Malaysia. I've suggested to the organizer to have a technical presentation using Blender tools, much like Autodesk's Master/expert series. The organizer so far seems to be interested in the idea. I might have a chance to invite several speakers from Blender community to talk in-depth about Blender's technology in production environment. The categories covered can be in any of the creative content's main pipelines (modeling, rigging, rendering, scripting, effects/particles/simulations). I think this would be a good exposure about Blender's real capabilities to the participants (which will be attended by most of the local productions in Malaysia). Truly appreciate it if anyone can give me a feedback on this, or perhaps some suggestions if there's anyone that I should contact to move this idea forward? Thanks. Best Regards, Faizol Abd. Halim Malaysia ___ 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
Re: [Bf-committers] Seminar on Blender
Hi guys, Thanks for the feedback. Roger, the basic part of the travelling (airfare, hotel and expenses) will be covered by the organizer. As per presentation fee, I need to get some input (figure, terms and conditions, etc) from the respective speakers and relay it to the organizer. Suggestions are welcome. Anyone interested may email it directly to me. Charles, that's an excellent idea. One thing for sure is the video won't be as costly as Autodesk's Master series. I'll try to get in touch with Blender Institute and see if they have some other ideas on this. Another note on pipeline features that I totally forgot, production collaboration tool/pipeline. Blender's collaboration tool is top notch and can rival expensive proprietary system but only blender user who are heavily involved in production environment who know about it. Keep it coming guys. Thank you. Best Regards, Faizol Abd. Halim Malaysia On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Charles Wardlaw cward...@marchentertainment.com wrote: Hi, Something that Autodesk always does is they record these seminars and sell disks with the video, resource files, and a PDF of notes and slides from the presentations. I don't know that this would help you, but if you could get organizers to agree to let you record the presentations and then afterwards you could sell the DVDs, splitting profit with the organizers, you could recoup some of the cost of the stipends you'd need to pay out to get people to Malaysia. Also it'd benefit the community at large as there are so few master classes on Blender, and some of the most useful knowledge on the software is esoteric. Although, I woudln't charge what Autodesk does. Some of their DVDs have had notoriously little usable information and cost upwards of $80 USD. ~ C On 2010-05-07, at 2:55 AM, Muhamad Faizol Abd. Halim wrote: Hi guys, I'm in the middle of preparing a paperwork to organize a seminar on Content Creation in Malaysia. I've suggested to the organizer to have a technical presentation using Blender tools, much like Autodesk's Master/expert series. The organizer so far seems to be interested in the idea. I might have a chance to invite several speakers from Blender community to talk in-depth about Blender's technology in production environment. The categories covered can be in any of the creative content's main pipelines (modeling, rigging, rendering, scripting, effects/particles/simulations). I think this would be a good exposure about Blender's real capabilities to the participants (which will be attended by most of the local productions in Malaysia). Truly appreciate it if anyone can give me a feedback on this, or perhaps some suggestions if there's anyone that I should contact to move this idea forward? Thanks. Best Regards, Faizol Abd. Halim Malaysia ___ 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 ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC Proposal: Unit Testing
Okay, I have spent several hours looking into this. I do like how the framework works, however, I still haven't gotten it to actually compile anything (not even their samples, so I'm thinking I've got the framework compiled incorrectly). It also seems like this is designed to be used directly by the end programmer, rather than being plugged into another framework such as Ctest (which is what I was considering doing, as cmake is already used), but I could be wrong on that. However, I would like to get the general mood of the developers on having a C++ testing framework. Is it proffered, acceptable but not optimal, or is a definite no (or something else). While the majority of the code is written in C (except for parts written in python), there are a few bits here and there in C++. Anyway, I appreciate your opinions. ~Leif Andersen -- That was easy: http://www.appbrain.com/app/net.leifandersen.mobile.android.easybutton On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:51, Leif Andersen leif.a.ander...@gmail.comwrote: Great, thanks, that's good information to have. ~Leif Andersen -- That was easy: http://www.appbrain.com/app/net.leifandersen.mobile.android.easybutton On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 15:51, Tom M letter...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Leif Andersen leif.a.ander...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, I'll take a look into it. The only think that I may be worried about is the license, I'm not sure how that would work for unit testing, so I'm not sure if the BSD license would be comparable with a GPL project. BSD, MIT, zlib, LGPL are all GPL compatible. LetterRip ~Leif Andersen ___ 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
Re: [Bf-committers] The final step that Blender needs to take in order to become fundamentally perfect
El Fri, 7 May 2010 18:04:50 -0500 Reuben Martin reube...@gmail.com escribió: Yo, back on Friday, May 07, 2010 nautilus was all like: XSI's ICE is the use of a customizable node which can be compared to [ ... ] like multihost Mantra. -nautilus Let play this cool game where we try to see who can use the most words to say the least. Bonus points for buzz words. I find your proposal on leveraging an enterprise-like language paradigm quite interesting. -Reuben ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] Hi. I have just joined.
Hi all. I have just joined the mailing list. I am a director of animation at Iloura (www.iloura.com.au) and am the lead VFX supervisor at it's Film and Tv department. I am using blender both professionally and privately and have 25 years working in VFX and CGI (I was the first person to use 3Ds for a use other than cad believe it or not). I have been working through 2.5 since the start getting into Matt Ebb's and Aligorith's ears a bit :) and have some thought's I'd like to see discussed if possible. Things like this: http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1622201#post1622201 My focus is on bringing Blender into a mainstream film pipeline and how it interacts with other 3d/2d apps and workflows. Any questions about film and VFX that might lend weight to how you develop 2.5, I'm your guy. ~Glenn Melenhorst www.glennmelenhorst.com ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
