[Bf-committers] Masks are not only for Mattes
I've been testing the cool mask editor and have detected that it is too centered around the matte workflow. Rotoscoping is one big use of masks but it is not the only one by far Another big (arguably bigger) use case for masks is to localize composite effects In the making of of Exeter Shot by alex roman you can see the heavy use of power windows and other kinds of masks to colorize, darken, etc zones of the composition https://vimeo.com/8217700 We got to rethink how to present the masking tools not as something strictly attached to a footage but something of regular use in the compositor for any scene, even fully generated Part of the solution can be to allow a compositor viewer to feed the mask editor, this way we can see the composited results under the masks. Similar to my simple design from more than a year ago that used the image viewer to both edit masks and also load the viewer result https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/15LEi9SAE4KcsIOdWX16iPoSXhCjM0vA1ws6KxF4Dhzk/edit?authkey=CJ7U-dQK&authkey=CJ7U-dQK Another problem is the difficulty to manage multiple masks at once. The current workflow contemplates editing of one mask, if you need another mask you need to disable the current one and create a new mask databloq. Even with layers available they can only be retrieved as a single mask in the compositor, hence being useful for a single effect. In practice you will need many fully independant masks acting in a single composite. One for colorizing some part, one for darkening, one or two for blurring, etc. Cheers Daniel Salazar patazstudio.com ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] Masks are not only for Mattes
I think the mask editor could be more generic: Consider a mask as a raster 2D vector image input, could be edited only in the UV/image editor as a "vectorial image" ( with the possibility to view a video/image backdrop) adding the current tools of the 2d bezier curve ( shape keys, modifiers..), not in the video editor as a mask (now the video editor is full of tracking information). Later could be a start development of vectorial textures, and if you add the ability to rasterize color and edges (antigrain lib), and 2D bones, we have the possibility of 2D animations finally!! (flsh, Anime Studio...), animated vector textures, toon, and 2D FX =:-) ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Masks are not only for Mattes
Oh for the Exeter video jump to min 11:00 Daniel Salazar patazstudio.com On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com < zan...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've been testing the cool mask editor and have detected that it is > too centered around the matte workflow. Rotoscoping is one big use of masks > but it is not the only one by far > > Another big (arguably bigger) use case for masks is to localize composite > effects > > In the making of of Exeter Shot by alex roman you can see the heavy use of > power windows and other kinds of masks to colorize, darken, etc zones of > the composition > > https://vimeo.com/8217700 > > We got to rethink how to present the masking tools not as something > strictly attached to a footage but something of regular use in the > compositor for any scene, even fully generated > > Part of the solution can be to allow a compositor viewer to feed the mask > editor, this way we can see the composited results under the masks. Similar > to my simple design from more than a year ago that used the image viewer to > both edit masks and also load the viewer result > > > https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/15LEi9SAE4KcsIOdWX16iPoSXhCjM0vA1ws6KxF4Dhzk/edit?authkey=CJ7U-dQK&authkey=CJ7U-dQK > > Another problem is the difficulty to manage multiple masks at once. The > current workflow contemplates editing of one mask, if you need another mask > you need to disable the current one and create a new mask databloq. Even > with layers available they can only be retrieved as a single mask in the > compositor, hence being useful for a single effect. In practice you will > need many fully independant masks acting in a single composite. One for > colorizing some part, one for darkening, one or two for blurring, etc. > > Cheers > > Daniel Salazar > patazstudio.com > ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Masks are not only for Mattes
Completely agree here. I think it would be ideal to be able to edit the mask inside of the compositor instead of having to jump between different windows. -NateW On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com wrote: > Oh for the Exeter video jump to min 11:00 > > Daniel Salazar > patazstudio.com > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com < > zan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I've been testing the cool mask editor and have detected that it is >> too centered around the matte workflow. Rotoscoping is one big use of masks >> but it is not the only one by far >> >> Another big (arguably bigger) use case for masks is to localize composite >> effects >> >> In the making of of Exeter Shot by alex roman you can see the heavy use of >> power windows and other kinds of masks to colorize, darken, etc zones of >> the composition >> >> https://vimeo.com/8217700 >> >> We got to rethink how to present the masking tools not as something >> strictly attached to a footage but something of regular use in the >> compositor for any scene, even fully generated >> >> Part of the solution can be to allow a compositor viewer to feed the mask >> editor, this way we can see the composited results under the masks. Similar >> to my simple design from more than a year ago that used the image viewer to >> both edit masks and also load the viewer result >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/15LEi9SAE4KcsIOdWX16iPoSXhCjM0vA1ws6KxF4Dhzk/edit?authkey=CJ7U-dQK&authkey=CJ7U-dQK >> >> Another problem is the difficulty to manage multiple masks at once. The >> current workflow contemplates editing of one mask, if you need another mask >> you need to disable the current one and create a new mask databloq. Even >> with layers available they can only be retrieved as a single mask in the >> compositor, hence being useful for a single effect. In practice you will >> need many fully independant masks acting in a single composite. One for >> colorizing some part, one for darkening, one or two for blurring, etc. >> >> Cheers >> >> Daniel Salazar >> patazstudio.com >> > ___ > 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] Masks are not only for Mattes
On Jun 4, 2012 7:02 PM, "Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com" wrote: > We got to rethink how to present the masking tools not as something > strictly attached to a footage but something of regular use in the > compositor for any scene, even fully generated > > Part of the solution can be to allow a compositor viewer to feed the mask > editor, this way we can see the composited results under the masks. Similar > to my simple design from more than a year ago that used the image viewer to > both edit masks and also load the viewer result I must say this is a timely post. I agree 100% here. I will say that I think the new spline code is wonderful at the core, and I preface this with tremendous thanks to Peter and Sergey for the hard work. However, it would seem that a spectre is looming on the horizon. I would humbly call into question our design choice to now tag much of this new rotoscoping functionality into the newer Movie Clip Editor space. What is the Movie Clip Editor space for? Is it for tracking? Now rotoscoping? What is the internal logic of this new editing space? If we look at grading alone, we can already see how the decision to create a new working space will adversely impact our workflow. As Daniel pointed out, mattes have far more uses than rotoscoping, and so too does tracking. How can we create a simple point and track a grading region to it? How would we be able to isolate a region for a particular grading effect? Etc? It would seem to me that a large part of this stems from a lack of interactivity within the UV Image editing window, much like Daniel suggests. We need look no further than the Backdrop view toggle to see how the user interface vision wandered. We have already seen how we have had to resort to rather unfortunate workarounds via a "Tracks to FCurve" button in the Movie Clip Editor, where it would seem to beg for a tracking node. I cannot help but wonder if a stronger focus was placed to make the UV Image Viewer space interactive would dissolve the current design problems looming on our horizon and create a greater cohesion within the workflow. It would seem like a wonderful juncture to perhaps analyze our design choices and consider future limitations at this juncture... With utter respect, TJS ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Masks are not only for Mattes
El 05/06/12 02:46, Troy Sobotka escribió: > It would seem like a wonderful juncture to perhaps analyze our design > choices and consider future limitations at this juncture... +1 This implementation is somewhat disconnected from the compositor. Masking and tracking is usually more necessary in the composite context than in a single clip context. My gut says that the right place for tracking and masking would be on top of the viewer, and probably extending the image/UV editor adding these functionalities as "modes" would be more flexible than having a separate window. If tracking and masking would be nodes, double clicking on them could connect the output to the viewer window (UV/Image Editor) and display the proper widgets and options instead of having to change manually windows and modes. That could also work for widgets for transform nodes, for instance. Gez. ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Masks are not only for Mattes
The UV editor is suited for UV editing and reviewing what parts of the image go to what parts of the mesh. The UV editor can be seen as an image viewer/painter, but, in the end it is not a swiss knife of functionality either. Its primary intended for modifying the data themselves while the track editor and compositor can be seen as operating -based- on the data. IMO, this discussion should not be targeted at the uv editor but to a better interoperability between compositor/tracker. ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Masks are not only for Mattes
And how would you parent a mask to a track marker in the UV editor? Besides, editing the mask in a 3rd place makes the workflow very clumsy. Jump from UV editor to Track editor to compositorIMO the current integration is fine, what is lacking IMO is support for static images. If this fits into the tracker or the compositor or some combination of the two is another issue. ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Masks are not only for Mattes
El 05/06/2012 18:45, Antony Riakiotakis escribió: > And how would you parent a mask to a track marker in the UV editor? With drop-down menu with a track marker names. I think the code mask tools can be a gateway to integrate vector images in the blender workflow, animated vector textures, 2D animation., > Besides, editing the mask in a 3rd place makes the workflow very > clumsy. Jump from UV editor to Track editor to compositorIMO the > current integration is fine, what is lacking IMO is support for static > images. If this fits into the tracker or the compositor or some > combination of the two is another issue. > ___ > 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] Masks are not only for Mattes
El 05/06/12 13:23, Antony Riakiotakis escribió: > The UV editor is suited for UV editing and reviewing what parts of the > image go to what parts of the mesh. The UV editor can be seen as an > image viewer/painter, but, in the end it is not a swiss knife of > functionality either. Its primary intended for modifying the data > themselves while the track editor and compositor can be seen as > operating -based- on the data. IMO, this discussion should not be > targeted at the uv editor but to a better interoperability between > compositor/tracker. Ok, maybe I didn't express myself with enough clarity. I meant that we have the composite viewer in one place and the tracking/masking tools in another. Since viewers and image analysis tools live currently in the UV/Image editor, I proposed to take masking and tracking there, but maybe it's better to have a specialized viewer window (perhaps the same clip window) and take the viewer and image analysis tools from the UV/Image editor to the clip editor window. The point is having masking and tracking also available for composites, not just for clips. And having both operations working as nodes instead of separated tools would be more flexible because you could feed those tools with both, footage and (pre)composites. Gez ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Masks are not only for Mattes
IMO linking track to mask should be done in compositor by linking data together. Lets drop tracker, and talk about animation. Let say you have a 3 object animated in your scene. You get its position to screen and need some kind of shape around it (for whatever reason you can image). So you would link this data onto the Shape anchor point, and then animate the shape itself, all that in the compositor. Another case : I mixed a few stock footage together to create a nice explosion. Now I need to place this explosion on the ground, and I would like to draw a mask around it to blend it and feather it a bit more with my background. How do you that ? - Creating a node in comp to bring back data into Clip editor ? you loose the interactivity of quick masking - Render your explosion footage first, bring it into the clip editor, do the mask on it and looking into another compositor output viewer to see how the masking I'm doing in Clip Editor is looking so far ? huge waste of time, and not so confortable Masking need to be flexible, re-usable, and as interactive as it can get. Having it in CE is nice for garbage masking (with a big G) which can be used by trackers to know which track area it should use, or perhaps for keying... but not for compositing at all. But again, I guess this is just the first step of a long time wanted feature :) 2012/6/5 Antony Riakiotakis > And how would you parent a mask to a track marker in the UV editor? > Besides, editing the mask in a 3rd place makes the workflow very > clumsy. Jump from UV editor to Track editor to compositorIMO the > current integration is fine, what is lacking IMO is support for static > images. If this fits into the tracker or the compositor or some > combination of the two is another issue. > ___ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > -- François Tarlier www.francois-tarlier.com www.linkedin.com/in/francoistarlier ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Masks are not only for Mattes
This is maybe a ridiculous suggestion: feel free to shoot it down: - we currently have one 3D editor. Here we do all our 3d tasks, modelling, animation, rigging, curves, meshes, etc. We can select and manipulate many different types of 3d objects, in different ways. -we can do *much less* things in 2d (blender is after all a 3d program). Yet we have multiple specialized windows for 2d editing: UV editor, movie clip editor. (arguably the sequence editor is some sort of 2d nla). So maybe, we are making 2d editing too compartmentalized; and we should have 1 2d editor where you can do any 2d tasks? or is this silly? I'm not actually pushing for this, it is only an observation/idea. On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 13:59 -0300, Guillermo Espertino (Gez) wrote: > El 05/06/12 13:23, Antony Riakiotakis escribió: > > The UV editor is suited for UV editing and reviewing what parts of the > > image go to what parts of the mesh. The UV editor can be seen as an > > image viewer/painter, but, in the end it is not a swiss knife of > > functionality either. Its primary intended for modifying the data > > themselves while the track editor and compositor can be seen as > > operating -based- on the data. IMO, this discussion should not be > > targeted at the uv editor but to a better interoperability between > > compositor/tracker. > Ok, maybe I didn't express myself with enough clarity. I meant that we > have the composite viewer in one place and the tracking/masking tools in > another. > Since viewers and image analysis tools live currently in the UV/Image > editor, I proposed to take masking and tracking there, but maybe it's > better to have a specialized viewer window (perhaps the same clip > window) and take the viewer and image analysis tools from the UV/Image > editor to the clip editor window. > The point is having masking and tracking also available for composites, > not just for clips. And having both operations working as nodes instead > of separated tools would be more flexible because you could feed those > tools with both, footage and (pre)composites. > > Gez > > > ___ > 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] Masks are not only for Mattes
+100 for that in the viewer (whatever if its ImageViewer or Composite or new space. You should be able to work directly on your comp. and there is no point to link mask to a footage. a Mask should be rasterized in comp and plug into alpha or matte socket Having it in MCE is nice for garbage tracking, but not suited for compositing at all ! (I'm not even talking about motion design where you'd actually play with shapes and keep it as is) 2012/6/5 Guillermo Espertino (Gez) > El 05/06/12 13:23, Antony Riakiotakis escribió: > > The UV editor is suited for UV editing and reviewing what parts of the > > image go to what parts of the mesh. The UV editor can be seen as an > > image viewer/painter, but, in the end it is not a swiss knife of > > functionality either. Its primary intended for modifying the data > > themselves while the track editor and compositor can be seen as > > operating -based- on the data. IMO, this discussion should not be > > targeted at the uv editor but to a better interoperability between > > compositor/tracker. > Ok, maybe I didn't express myself with enough clarity. I meant that we > have the composite viewer in one place and the tracking/masking tools in > another. > Since viewers and image analysis tools live currently in the UV/Image > editor, I proposed to take masking and tracking there, but maybe it's > better to have a specialized viewer window (perhaps the same clip > window) and take the viewer and image analysis tools from the UV/Image > editor to the clip editor window. > The point is having masking and tracking also available for composites, > not just for clips. And having both operations working as nodes instead > of separated tools would be more flexible because you could feed those > tools with both, footage and (pre)composites. > > Gez > > > ___ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > -- François Tarlier www.francois-tarlier.com www.linkedin.com/in/francoistarlier ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Masks are not only for Mattes
Guys, i've got no idea what you're arguing here about. All current discussion is like "current masking tools are not good enough to be used for compositing" and that's indeed correct. It was developed to be used for greenscreen keying needs to resolve project Mango's needs. And from this POV defining masks in clip editor totally makes sense because it requires close interaction with tracking stuff. Current design of mask editing is flexible enough to be integrated into another spaces like image editor (which is in fact pretty much easy) and even compositor (which is a bit more tricky because it'll require some design changes in compositor itself and it's not priority for now). Rough roadmap would be: - Finish usecase related on masking garbage of footage greensreen keying (which implies improvements in feather control, rasterizer and so) - Probably it'll also require integrating masking tools into Image Editor to be able to mask garbage using result of keying node as reference backdrop - Check on possibilities of integrating this tools into compositor. So i'd suggest to be a bit more patient and instead of continuing this not actually useful discussion (we're aware of all this!) return back to work. -- With best regards, Sergey Sharybin ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Masks are not only for Mattes
El 05/06/12 14:58, Bassam Kurdali escribió: > This is maybe a ridiculous suggestion: feel free to shoot it down: > > - we currently have one 3D editor. Here we do all our 3d tasks, > modelling, animation, rigging, curves, meshes, etc. We can select and > manipulate many different types of 3d objects, in different ways. > > -we can do *much less* things in 2d (blender is after all a 3d program). > Yet we have multiple specialized windows for 2d editing: UV editor, > movie clip editor. (arguably the sequence editor is some sort of 2d > nla). > > So maybe, we are making 2d editing too compartmentalized; and we should > have 1 2d editor where you can do any 2d tasks? or is this silly? > > I'm not actually pushing for this, it is only an observation/idea. That's interesting! What about a "viewer window" that can fed with the viewer from composite, the 3D viewport (from camera) or individual footage? They could be used even as layers (for instance, the 3D view from camera on top of a compositing viewer, or the composite over an imported footage). Having masks, tracking and node widgets on top of that would be incredibly flexible. It's also just an idea, but perhaps an idea that is worth to explore and draft, at least to see if there are any significant issues. Gez. ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Masks are not only for Mattes
I think I have judged prematurely, masks can have some usefulness in the image editor too, especially in the context of painting. But from what I gather from the mango thread all these things are possible and can be done, it's just that currently they are just implemented for rotoscoping. ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Masks are not only for Mattes
> > And from this POV defining masks in clip editor totally makes sense > because it requires > close interaction with tracking stuff. > > I can't say I do agree with that statement, but I get the point... yet sometimes those kind of thinking brings really bad design which tends to stick around for a while :p ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
